From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Mar 13 10:48:59 1999 Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:48:59 -0500 (EST) From: Mail System Internal Data Subject: DON'T DELETE THIS MESSAGE -- FOLDER INTERNAL DATA X-IMAP: 0915907031 0000008455 Status: RO This text is part of the internal format of your mail folder, and is not a real message. It is created automatically by the mail system software. If deleted, important folder data will be lost, and it will be re-created with the data reset to initial values. From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Sep 27 01:29:29 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA22090; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 01:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA22007; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 01:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id XAA00088 for sanet-real; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:37:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id XAA00085 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA21202 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:42:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA14895 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:37:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:37:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: ORGANIC FARMING IS GREEN PEACE WITH NATURE Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1 GP Press release 24.09.97 >Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:54:45 -0400 (EDT) >From: Purefood@aol.com >Sender: owner-biotech-wg@igc.apc.org >Subject: Fwd: GP Press release 24.09.97 >To: biotech-wg@igc.apc.org >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: Barbara.Kuepper@greenpeace.de >To: gentech@tribe.ping.de >Date: 97-09-26 02:16:50 EDT >ORGANIC FARMING IS GREEN PEACE WITH NATURE >Greenpeace head congratulates IFOAM, calls for co-operation against >chemical and biological pollution >OXFORD 24th September. 1997 -- Presenting Greenpeace's cordial >congratulations on the 25th anniversary of the International >Federation of Organic Agriculture Movemements (IFOAM) Dr. Thilo Bode, >executive Director of Greenpeace International, called organic farming >one of the world's most sophisticated and serious visions of >sustainability. >"Everybody talks about the fact that food production has to >dramatically reduce energy consumption, toxic output and destructive >methods that ruin soil and water resources and threaten the worlds >biodiversity," Bode told representatives of the Organic Movement at >their Conference in Oxford today, "But you just do it. And that is the >style we like!" >By practically proving that green peace with nature was actually >possible, the organic movement was the most important beachhead to >sustainable agriculture of the 21st century. Referring to a joint >petition on a class of genetically modified plants (containing genes >of Bacillus Thuringiensis), which Greenpeace and IFOAM filed against >the US Environmental Protection Agency last week, Bode warned the >delegates: "Genetic engineering will not solve the massive problems >the chemical industry has created, but rather add a new, fundamental >environmental threat: from chemical to biological pollution." >Bode urged IFOAM to firmly stick to its present standards, which >generally prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms. Bode >congratulated IFOAM on the exponential growth of organic farming over >the past few years not only in industrialised countries but also in >the South, as well as their expansion to new sectors such as textiles, >wood and fisheries. >"Your success will not be left unchallenged, because every hectare >that is converted to organic methods is a loss to the new powerful >agro-chemical transnational companies, who now call themselves Life >Science Industry," Bode warned, and suggested that co-operation >between environmental groups and the organic community had to >intensify and expand in the future. >As the most important restriction to further growth of the organic >sector and important field of co-operation Bode identified the present >global terms of trade and a price system that did not properly reflect >the costs of environmental destruction: "We need realistic prices for >energy and global warming contribution, for toxic pollution and for >the devaluating destruction of soil, water-resources and >biodiversity." >While the industrial vision on future agriculture continued, causing >destructive overproduction at the expense of the environment but also >at the expense of rural employment and livelihoods, organic farming >offered hope for social sustainability: "Organic farming is probably >one of the most promising global job creators", he said. >In a world where still 800 millions are hungry while more food is >produced and wasted than they can eat, the measure of efficiency is >not how to further increase productivity at all costs, but how to >provide access to food there is. The question is not "How can we feed >the world," but "How can the people of the world feed themselves." >"Environmentalists have to make it clear," Bode concluded, "that >sustainable agriculture is not just an interesting alternative or >niche market but an ecological imperative." > ends >For further information contact Benedikt Haerlin, Greenpeace >International Genetic Engineering coordinator +49 40 30618-410, fax >-140 > > ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe, >subscribe or help is: > > GENTECH-REQUEST@ping.de From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Sep 27 01:31:37 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA22111; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 01:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA22327; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 01:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id AAA01409 for sanet-real; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpmt2.cyberport.net (root@ns2.cyberport.net [208.136.100.4]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id AAA01406 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.cyberport.net (cyb-pm3-023.cyberport.net [208.136.100.152]) by cpmt2.cyberport.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA21885 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:26:02 -0600 Message-Id: <199709270426.WAA21885@cpmt2.cyberport.net> Reply-To: From: "Joe Brenneman" To: Subject: Organic Dairy Farmers Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:32:41 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2 I'm interested in corresponding with some organic dairy farmers, particularly anyone not located next to a large population center and involved in processing and marketing their products as well as producing organic milk. Thanks, Joe Brenneman Two Dog Dairy 800 Steel Bridge Road Kalispell, Montana 59901 From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Sep 27 05:20:43 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id FAA26112; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 05:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id FAA07478; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 05:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id EAA07218 for sanet-real; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 04:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [198.53.172.12]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id EAA07215 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 04:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from i1-151.islandnet.com [198.53.172.151] by mail.islandnet.com with smtp id m0xEsDT-0006dIC for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 01:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 01:26:15 -0800 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: dragon@mail.islandnet.com (lischeron) Subject: unsubscribe Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3 unsubscribe From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Sep 27 07:31:36 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA27796; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 07:31:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA23281; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 07:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id GAA09789 for sanet-real; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po4.wam.umd.edu (po4.wam.umd.edu [128.8.70.137]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id GAA09786 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rac8.wam.umd.edu (jennsueb@rac8.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.148]) by po4.wam.umd.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA14985; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (jennsueb@localhost) by rac8.wam.umd.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA01080; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:27:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: rac8.wam.umd.edu: jennsueb owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:27:28 -0400 (EDT) From: jennifer sue butler To: D J Dietz cc: "Margaret T. Baldor" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Organic Labeling and Certification - Looking for Resources In-Reply-To: <342AEBA2.191@globaldialog.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4 This is the info for the SMALLFARM-MG listserve: To Subscribe Send a message to -- majordomo@reeusda.gov In the body, type -- subscribe smallfarm-mg To Unsubscribe Send a message to -- majordomo@reeusda.gov In the body, type -- unsubscribe smallfarm-mg [Already at end of message] Good Luck with your search. Jenn Butler U of MD, Grad Student, Soil Fertility On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, D J Dietz wrote: > Margaret T. Baldor wrote: > > > > Hello - I'm interested in doing a term project for a grad. Agricultural > > Policy class on organic labeling and certification. I'm looking for really > > good resources -- knowledgable individuals, groups, organizations, > > government that I can contact. Any/all help would be appreciated. Thanks. > > Meg. > > > > Meg Baldor > > 213 Carrigan Hall > > University of Vermont > > Burlington, VT 05405 > > (802) 656-0135 > > mbaldor@zoo.uvm.edu > > Meg, > > Try the SMALLFARM-MG list. They have been having quite the talk about > this lately. > > I looked for the subscription info but couldnt find it. Anyone on sanet > have that info? > > Dan Dietz > Reedsburg Wisconsin > > From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Sep 27 08:34:20 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA28053; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 08:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA01036; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 08:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id GAA09979 for sanet-real; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po4.wam.umd.edu (po4.wam.umd.edu [128.8.70.137]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id GAA09976 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rac8.wam.umd.edu (jennsueb@rac8.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.148]) by po4.wam.umd.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA15028; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (jennsueb@localhost) by rac8.wam.umd.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA01171; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:44:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: rac8.wam.umd.edu: jennsueb owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:44:28 -0400 (EDT) From: jennifer sue butler To: "Sarah W. Obraitis" cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: human waste composting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5 Sarah, Send your request to WASTENOT@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU. The group has a listserve about composting. Jenn Butler U of MD, Grad Student, Soil Fertility On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Sarah W. Obraitis wrote: > > hello saneters, > > i am doing a research project on the possibility of the establishment of a > human waste composting station in montpelier, vermont and its effects on > the environment and especially those onto farmers. the community is up > in arms. if anyone is involved in such a thing, or is knowledgeable on the > subect, references, comments and opinions would be greatly appreciated. > > thanks, sarah > > ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><> > Sarah W. Obraitis > sobraiti@zoo.uvm.edu > CDAE-Agricultural Economics and International Development > > > From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Sep 27 14:27:08 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA07235; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 14:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA09632; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 14:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id MAA18574 for sanet-real; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id MAA18571 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fpfzqlga (user-38lcac5.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.41.133]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA09352; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <342D3884.4A34@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:47:00 -0400 From: "Clarence W. Walker" Reply-To: atlintlcom@mindspring.com Organization: Atlanta Int'l Communications, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sheryl N. Swink" CC: sksnow@1stnet.com, sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, compost.list@cornell.edu Subject: Re: Help! Model Ordinances, Direct Marketing Farmer Surv References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6 Sheryl N. Swink wrote: > > Dear Susan, > You wrote: > >Are you aware of the kind of compost being peddled by Clarence W. Walker > >and others? Not all compost is alike! Certainly, what we make at home > >is probably the best, especially if we are not using sewage sludge or > >mixed municipal solid waste. > > > >However, those on Clarence's list, Wastenot, are peddling far more than > >clean, environmentally safe compost . . .. > [The rest of the posting with details follows at the end of my response] > > Oops! > Thank you, Susan, for contributing more details about Mr. Walker's > "composted organics." I certainly agree with you that this is not the kind > of product I would envision myself or others buying at a farmer's market, > at least not if we were fully informed of the nature of the product! I read > the following message from Cary Oshins of Rodale Institute: > > >Clarence walker wrote: > >>Maria, Would it be appropriate for producers of professionally and > >>safely made composts to take their composted organics to such markets as > >>a means of reaching the farmers and possibly even educating those who > >>are interested in the value of composting as an alternative to > >>landfills? > > >Clarence, while it would be acceptable to sell compost at a farmer's market, > >it would hardly be economical. > >Cary Oshins > >Rodale Institute > > I understood this to be referring to compost derived from such things as > yard and kitchen waste and possibly manures Compost is (was?) being made > from such material collected at the curbside in Seattle (not the manures). > I'll have to check and see if any undesireable materials have been added to > the composting program there since I last checked. I hope they have not > moved toward being so inclusive as Clarence Walker's friends. That > certainly is not what the customers I worked with were looking to buy! I > responded as I did because I felt that enterprising farmers and others who > were making whatI thought was the kind of compost you or I would be > interested in should be discouraged from investigating a marketing > possibility. > > Thank you again for your informative reply, > > Sheryl Swink > > >However, those on Clarence's list, Wastenot, are peddling far more than > >clean, environmentally safe compost. One peddler-activist claims: > >''...We develop systems and produce compost from sludge, septage, mixed > >MSW, restaurant and carwash trap waste, animal waste by-products, and > >yes even landfill leachate...creosote,and a wide range of PAH's, > >chlorinated and halogenated hydrocarbons including PCB's, dioxins, VOC's > >have all been in the mix.'' > > >I personally have no problem using animal manures to heat up the pile > >and add nutrients, but I have a big problem with compost on farms and > >gardens which have used sewage sludge, landfill leachate, mixed > >municipal solid waste, cartrap wastes, PAH's, chlorinated and > >halogenated hydrocarbons including PCB's, dioxins, VOC's. Furthermore, > >some creative persons are looking to compost radioactive wastes, pulp > >and paper mill waste, oil and gas wastes including normally occurring > >radioactive material. > > >There is no wonder why companies like Wheelabrator Environmental > >Services which was a major player in the incinerator industry, is now in > >the composting business. Where else to get rid of that ash without > >regulations on fertilizers, potting soil, and compost? > > >There is some good information on sewage sludge (a.k.a. biosolids) in > >chapter 8 of the book, Toxic Sludge is Good for You. Chapter 8 is > >entitled The Sludge Hits the Fan and is located at > >http://www.envirolink.org/issues/sludge/sludge.html > > >Since you are at Cornell, I suggest you also read The Cause for Concern > >at http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/ You will need the Adobe Reader to > >download it in it's PDF form. The report compares standards around the > >world and discusses the problems with the US EPA regulations which > >protect industry but not public health. > > >Another source of information regarding standards for sewage sludge and > >compost comes from the paper version of the newsletter, WASTENOT, edited > >by Paul and Ellen Connett of St. Lawrence University in Canton, New > >York. > > > WN #241 has a chart which was reprinted with permission from > >Composting Frontiers, Spring 1993, page 3. Editor Susan Mazzochi. Waste > >Not says this is an excellent quarterly newsletter that is directed to > >provide "direction on composting for waste management." For more > >information, contact Composting Frontiers, 19 Girard Place, Maplewood, > >New Jersey 07040-3107. Tel: 201-762-4912. Fax: 201-761-5415. > > >I do not have the software to make a chart, therefore cannot give all > >that data that was in #241 in this email. However, for comparison, > >I'd like to share some of the standards for toxic heavy metals allowed > >in both compost and sewage sludge in the United States and in other > >progressive countries. > > >The federal [U.S.] government standards for Clean Water Act section 503 > >'High Quality' Sludges/Sludge Composts (also known as biosolids) in > >mg/kg weight follows; the second number is the CWA 503 Ceiling > >Concentrations: > > > >cadmium 39 - 85 > >chromium 1200 - 3000 > >cobalt --- > >copper 1500 - 4300 > >lead 300 - 800 > >mercury 17 - 57 > >molybdenum 18 - 75 > >nickel 420 > >selenium 36 - 100 > >zinc 2800 -7500 > > >To compare > >The Dutch Compost Sludge Quality Standards for Very Clean > >Compost/Sludge: > > >arsenic cadmium chromium copper lead mercury nickel zinc > > 5/15 0.7/1.25 50/350 25/75 65/100 0.2/0.75 10/30 75/300 > > >The German Compost/Sludge Quality Standards: > > >none for arsenic > >cadmium 1.5/1-1.5 > >chromium 100/10 > >copper 100/6 > >lead 150/100 > >mercury 1.0/1.0 > >nickel 50/5 > >zinc 400/150-200 > > > >Canadian Compost Quality Standards > > Ontario British Columbia National Guideline > >arsenic 10 13 13 > >cadmium 3 2.6 2.6 > >chromium 50. 210. 210. > >cobalt 25. -- 26. > >copper 60. 100. 128. > >lead 150 150. 83. > >mercury 0.15 .8 0.83 > >molybdenum 2 -- 7 > >nickel 60. 50. 32. > >selenium 2 -- 2.6 > >zinc 500. 500. 315 > > >When you look at the numbers, do you wonder why our health in the United > >States is worth less than the health or life in the Netherlands, Germany > >and Canada. Will our children be able to compete in a world where the > >United States allows higher levels of toxic metals, especially lead in > >high quality sludges and composted sewage sludge? > > >BTW, when I posted these numbers to Mr. Walker's online discussion list, > >he had me delisted and banished. Contrary to what Clarence W. Walker > >states, he does not want to hear from those who oppose him or the > >environmental community. Can we really afford to continue poisoning our > >soils and life on earth, including our children, in order that > >industries can make money by composting industrial wastes? > > > > > > > >Susan Snow The above constitutes specifically legally actionable slander, libel, direct and specific lies, and gross distortion of anything remotely resembling facts. I defy Ms. Snow to prove that she has ever once reviewed a test result of my compost...ever! I defy Ms. Snow to show that she has even once reviewed my standard...ever! I defy Ms. Snow to prove that she has even once reviewed the contents of my compost...ever! I defy Ms. Snow to prove that she has ever reviewed any product that I have produced...ever! I defy Ms. Snow to prove that she has even once looked at, tested, or touched a single product that I have distributed...ever! Ms Snow, as the owner of the WASTENOT list I am reluctantly forced by your lack of professionalism to disclose that you were removed from the wastenot list specifically because of your activities such as the above.Whereas others in the environmental recycling community are actively interested in and supportive of raising the arts and sciences of composting and working together for the good of all you seem to be obsessed with negativity and obfuscation. Is this really reflective of the good work of the many of us in the environmental, recycling, composting, agricultural community who are trying to work along posive lines? I think not! Please try to stick to the truth...even if the truth doesn't always seem to serve your seemingly nefarious ends. -- Atlanta International Communications,Inc./Sales Reps. & Consulting Svcs. See our web site! Updated 07-14-97 http://www.mindspring.com/~atlintlcom Indust., Commercial, Muni., and Agri. Waste Processing Systems & Eqpt. 7500 Spalding Lane, Atlanta, Georgia 30350 phone 770-392-1313 fax 770 392-0078 email: atlintlcom@mindspring.com New equipment lines, systems, and project inquiries always considered. From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Sep 27 20:19:56 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA03227; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA23403; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id SAA28703 for sanet-real; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:58:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.1stnet.com (root@mail1.1stnet.com [206.104.32.40]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id SAA28700 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:58:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bruce (ppp16.1stnet.com [206.104.46.16]) by dancer.1stnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA32005; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:58:46 -0500 Message-ID: <342D8D43.4CD1@1stnet.com> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:48:35 -0500 From: "Susan K. Snow" Reply-To: sksnow@1stnet.com Organization: Pollution Solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sheryl N. Swink" CC: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, compost.list@cornell.edu Subject: Re: Help! Model Ordinances, Direct Marketing Farmer Surv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7 Dear Sheryl, With regards to my post to you, Mr. Walker wrote: > The above constitutes specifically legally actionable slander, libel, > direct and specific lies, and gross distortion of anything remotely > resembling facts. Let's see...I wrote to you that: > Are you aware of the kind of compost being peddled by Clarence W. Walker and others? > Not all compost is alike! Certainly, what we make at home is probably the best, especially if we are not > using sewage sludge or mixed municipal solid waste. > > However, those on Clarence's list, Wastenot, are peddling far more > than clean, environmentally safe compost. One peddler-activist > claims: > ''...We develop systems and produce compost from sludge, septage, > > mixed MSW, restaurant and carwash trap waste, animal waste > > by-products, and yes even landfill leachate...creosote,and a wide > > range of PAH's, chlorinated and halogenated hydrocarbons including > > PCB's, dioxins, VOC's have all been in the mix...'' [snip] > Furthermore, some creative persons are looking to compost radioactive > wastes, pulp and paper mill waste, oil and gas wastes including > normally occurring radioactive material. [snip] Whom am I slandering, libeling, telling direct and specific lies, and 'gross distortion of anything remotely resembling facts'? I did not say who said what. I simply shared one statement which was made by one individual on Mr. Walker's list. I quoted whas he said without mentioning his name or company. Nor did I say that was in Mr. Walker's compost. I don't know what is in his compost. I have not ever once reviewed a test result of Mr. Walker's compost; reviewed his standard; reviewed the contents of his compost; reviewed any product that he has produced; even once looked at, tested, or touched a single product that he has distributed. Moreover, I did not recall having said that I did. I said: > There is some good information on sewage sludge (a.k.a. biosolids) in > chapter 8 of the book, Toxic Sludge is Good for You. Chapter 8 is > entitled The Sludge Hits the Fan and is located at > http://www.envirolink.org/issues/sludge/sludge.html I said: > > Since you are at Cornell, I suggest you also read The Cause for > > Concern at http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/ You will need the Adobe > > Reader to download it in it's PDF form. The report compares > > standards around the world and discusses the problems with the US > EPA regulations [snip] > that protect industry but not public health.' Does that constitute: ''..specifically legally actionable slander, libel, direct and specific lies, and gross distortion of anything remotely resembling facts''? Perhaps, I should have stated that '' the US EPA's regulations that protect industry but not public health'' was my opinion. After all, EPA's risk assessment only looks at some of the toxic metals. It does not look at PCBs, dioxins, and the other some 70,000 plus mostly unregulated chemicals. Nor does it look some of the chemicals linked to fish downstream from sewage treatment plants producing a protein that only female fish are said to produce. Scientists tell me said fish and other species are become intersexed, from some of the manmade chemicals released into the environment that may be coming from sewage treatment plants. Yet, these chemicals are unregulated; not considered in the risk assessment. Nor do the regulations look at the multiple effects that combinations of known and unknown chemicals may be causing; the effects to multiple generations. Absence of data is considered a null in risk assessment...I understand. Therefore, they are ignored. If they are ignored, how can EPA's regulations be protective of public health? Mr. Walker said that: > Ms Snow, as the owner of the WASTENOT list I am reluctantly forced by > your lack of professionalism to disclose that you were removed from > the wastenot list specifically because of your activities such as the > above.Whereas others in the environmental recycling community are > actively interested in and supportive of raising the arts and sciences > of composting and working together for the good of all you seem to be > obsessed with negativity and obfuscation. [snip] I know of two other persons that have been removed from Wastenot because their verbalized viewpoints conflicted with those being promoted. If this a lie, what is the truth? In fact, a secret admirer who generally does not post statements to the list is forwarding me the digests. Within the September 26, 1997 digest, I learned that one person said he was asked by Mr. Walker to: > find out the "environmental community's" opinion > about composted sludge. This is what I have found. > > The environmental community has been waiting > for Cornell Waste Management Institute to issue its > report on sludge land application. That report has > actually now been issued (actual publication date August, > 1997). The report, about 35 pages long is located at > http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/PDFS/PDFS.html > and it's recommendations are very similar to the > Dutch standards, with lower limits for a few metals. > > The principle used in the Cornell recommendations > was the prevention of accumulation, over long term, > beyond current background limits. > > The report is extremely critical of the EPA's > methodology for determining the Part 503 regs, > citing numerous studies. > > During the next few months, the environmental > community will be reviewing and studying the > Cornell report and the reports on which it is based, > and make decisions about when/where/how to > proceed. It is obvious that many current applications > and many processes are creating "fertilizers", composts, > and dry mixes that are far above even the Dutch > standards, and those will be undoubtedly challenged. > > There are upwards of 10,000 community environmental > organizations in the U.S. alone. During the last 10 years, they > have been primarily responsible (sometimes with the backing > of local and federal laws) for the closing of 90% of the landfills > in the U.S. and the virtual standstill of the incinerator industry. > > These organizations act completely independent of each > other, but look to advisory organizations for guidance. > The organizations look to Cornell Waste > Management Institute for reports on sludge, > composting, etc. > > So there is the answer, which is close to what I expected, > essentially the Dutch standards. [snip] Will this individual be eliminated from the list? After all, Mr. Walker told him: > I can't believe you would do this. Meanwhile I have heard nothing > from any of the groups you purport to represent or others of the > recycling/environmental industry or associations that you had > mentioned bringing for discussion. This posting is reflecting the same > party line and lack of consideration that has exhausted everyone's > patience. > Desist. [snip] So, you see that although, I don't know this person, there are others on the list that share my point of view. Does that mean that I have been lying? It appears to me that those who peddle the ideas of composting questionable materials do not want to hear from people concerned about the potential quality or health problems due to their products or about conflicting viewpoints. If I was banished from Mr. Walker's list for my unprofessionalism in sharing this quoted information with you, my banishment is the cart before the horse. For I had not shared information learned on the list with others on the outside previously; and certainly, I had not mentioned names of companies or their owners. I suggest that my banishment and delisting was because of my concerns and cited information. I support composting vegetable matter be it food wastes and/or yard, garden, agricultural (and other vegetative) wastes. I also support using animal manures to help heat up the process and hence kill weed seeds, and pathogens; as well as add nitrogen and other nutrients. I am opposed however, to composting other fractions of the waste stream such as sewage sludge (a.k.a biosolids), landfill leachate, cartrap wastes, etc. Unless I hear back from Mr. Walker again, I will not bother you with refuted statements. Susan Snow Is this really reflective of > the good work of the many of us in the environmental, recycling, > composting, agricultural community who are trying to work along posive > lines? I think not! Please try to stick to the truth...even if the > truth doesn't always seem to serve your seemingly nefarious ends. > -- From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Sep 27 22:41:58 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA04935; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 22:41:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA21562; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 22:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id VAA03306 for sanet-real; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 21:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acme.sb.west.net (root@acme.sb.west.net [205.254.224.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id VAA03302 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 21:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [205.254.241.5] (term1-9.vta.west.net [205.254.241.9]) by acme.sb.west.net (8.8.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA06805 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: colibri@mail.west.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <342D3884.4A34@mindspring.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Beth von Gunten Subject: re gross distortion Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 8 Clarence W. Walker sent the following sequence: >Sheryl N. Swink wrote: >> >> Dear Susan, >> You wrote: >> >Are you aware of the kind of compost being peddled by Clarence W. Walker >> >and others? Not all compost is alike! Certainly, what we make at home >> >is probably the best, especially if we are not using sewage sludge or >> >mixed municipal solid waste. >> > >> >However, those on Clarence's list, Wastenot, are peddling far more than >> >clean, environmentally safe compost . . .. >> [The rest of the posting with details follows at the end of my response] >> >> Oops! >> Thank you, Susan, for contributing more details about Mr. Walker's >> "composted organics." I certainly agree with you that this is not the kind >> of product I would envision myself or others buying at a farmer's market, >> at least not if we were fully informed of the nature of the product! I read >> the following message from Cary Oshins of Rodale Institute: >> >> >Clarence walker wrote: >> >>Maria, Would it be appropriate for producers of professionally and >> >>safely made composts to take their composted organics to such markets as >> >>a means of reaching the farmers and possibly even educating those who >> >>are interested in the value of composting as an alternative to >> >>landfills? >> >> >Clarence, while it would be acceptable to sell compost at a farmer's market, >> >it would hardly be economical. >> >Cary Oshins >> >Rodale Institute >> >> I understood this to be referring to compost derived from such things as >> yard and kitchen waste and possibly manures Compost is (was?) being made >> from such material collected at the curbside in Seattle (not the manures). >> I'll have to check and see if any undesireable materials have been added to >> the composting program there since I last checked. I hope they have not >> moved toward being so inclusive as Clarence Walker's friends. That >> certainly is not what the customers I worked with were looking to buy! I >> responded as I did because I felt that enterprising farmers and others who >> were making whatI thought was the kind of compost you or I would be >> interested in should be discouraged from investigating a marketing >> possibility. >> >> Thank you again for your informative reply, >> >> Sheryl Swink >> >> >However, those on Clarence's list, Wastenot, are peddling far more than >> >clean, environmentally safe compost. One peddler-activist claims: >> >''...We develop systems and produce compost from sludge, septage, mixed >> >MSW, restaurant and carwash trap waste, animal waste by-products, and >> >yes even landfill leachate...creosote,and a wide range of PAH's, >> >chlorinated and halogenated hydrocarbons including PCB's, dioxins, VOC's >> >have all been in the mix.'' >> >> >I personally have no problem using animal manures to heat up the pile >> >and add nutrients, but I have a big problem with compost on farms and >> >gardens which have used sewage sludge, landfill leachate, mixed >> >municipal solid waste, cartrap wastes, PAH's, chlorinated and >> >halogenated hydrocarbons including PCB's, dioxins, VOC's. Furthermore, >> >some creative persons are looking to compost radioactive wastes, pulp >> >and paper mill waste, oil and gas wastes including normally occurring >> >radioactive material. >> >> >There is no wonder why companies like Wheelabrator Environmental >> >Services which was a major player in the incinerator industry, is now in >> >the composting business. Where else to get rid of that ash without >> >regulations on fertilizers, potting soil, and compost? >> >> >There is some good information on sewage sludge (a.k.a. biosolids) in >> >chapter 8 of the book, Toxic Sludge is Good for You. Chapter 8 is >> >entitled The Sludge Hits the Fan and is located at >> >http://www.envirolink.org/issues/sludge/sludge.html >> >> >Since you are at Cornell, I suggest you also read The Cause for Concern >> >at http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/ You will need the Adobe Reader to >> >download it in it's PDF form. The report compares standards around the >> >world and discusses the problems with the US EPA regulations which >> >protect industry but not public health. >> >> >Another source of information regarding standards for sewage sludge and >> >compost comes from the paper version of the newsletter, WASTENOT, edited >> >by Paul and Ellen Connett of St. Lawrence University in Canton, New >> >York. >> >> > WN #241 has a chart which was reprinted with permission from >> >Composting Frontiers, Spring 1993, page 3. Editor Susan Mazzochi. Waste >> >Not says this is an excellent quarterly newsletter that is directed to >> >provide "direction on composting for waste management." For more >> >information, contact Composting Frontiers, 19 Girard Place, Maplewood, >> >New Jersey 07040-3107. Tel: 201-762-4912. Fax: 201-761-5415. >> >> >I do not have the software to make a chart, therefore cannot give all >> >that data that was in #241 in this email. However, for comparison, >> >I'd like to share some of the standards for toxic heavy metals allowed >> >in both compost and sewage sludge in the United States and in other >> >progressive countries. >> >> >The federal [U.S.] government standards for Clean Water Act section 503 >> >'High Quality' Sludges/Sludge Composts (also known as biosolids) in >> >mg/kg weight follows; the second number is the CWA 503 Ceiling >> >Concentrations: >> > >> >cadmium 39 - 85 >> >chromium 1200 - 3000 >> >cobalt --- >> >copper 1500 - 4300 >> >lead 300 - 800 >> >mercury 17 - 57 >> >molybdenum 18 - 75 >> >nickel 420 >> >selenium 36 - 100 >> >zinc 2800 -7500 >> >> >To compare >> >The Dutch Compost Sludge Quality Standards for Very Clean >> >Compost/Sludge: >> >> >arsenic cadmium chromium copper lead mercury nickel zinc >> > 5/15 0.7/1.25 50/350 25/75 65/100 0.2/0.75 10/30 75/300 >> >> >The German Compost/Sludge Quality Standards: >> >> >none for arsenic >> >cadmium 1.5/1-1.5 >> >chromium 100/10 >> >copper 100/6 >> >lead 150/100 >> >mercury 1.0/1.0 >> >nickel 50/5 >> >zinc 400/150-200 >> > >> >Canadian Compost Quality Standards >> > Ontario British Columbia National Guideline >> >arsenic 10 13 13 >> >cadmium 3 2.6 2.6 >> >chromium 50. 210. 210. >> >cobalt 25. -- 26. >> >copper 60. 100. 128. >> >lead 150 150. 83. >> >mercury 0.15 .8 0.83 >> >molybdenum 2 -- 7 >> >nickel 60. 50. 32. >> >selenium 2 -- 2.6 >> >zinc 500. 500. 315 >> >> >When you look at the numbers, do you wonder why our health in the United >> >States is worth less than the health or life in the Netherlands, Germany >> >and Canada. Will our children be able to compete in a world where the >> >United States allows higher levels of toxic metals, especially lead in >> >high quality sludges and composted sewage sludge? >> >> >BTW, when I posted these numbers to Mr. Walker's online discussion list, >> >he had me delisted and banished. Contrary to what Clarence W. Walker >> >states, he does not want to hear from those who oppose him or the >> >environmental community. Can we really afford to continue poisoning our >> >soils and life on earth, including our children, in order that >> >industries can make money by composting industrial wastes? >> > >> >Susan Snow > >The above constitutes specifically legally actionable slander, libel, >direct and specific lies, and gross distortion of anything remotely >resembling facts. >I defy Ms. Snow to prove that she has ever once reviewed a test result >of my compost...ever! >I defy Ms. Snow to show that she has even once reviewed my >standard...ever! >I defy Ms. Snow to prove that she has even once reviewed the contents of >my compost...ever! >I defy Ms. Snow to prove that she has ever reviewed any product that I >have produced...ever! > I defy Ms. Snow to prove that she has even once looked at, tested, or >touched a single product that I have distributed...ever! > >Ms Snow, as the owner of the WASTENOT list I am reluctantly forced by >your lack of professionalism to disclose that you were removed from the >wastenot list specifically because of your activities such as the >above.Whereas others in the environmental recycling community are >actively interested in and supportive of raising the arts and sciences >of composting and working together for the good of all you seem to be >obsessed with negativity and obfuscation. Is this really reflective of >the good work of the many of us in the environmental, recycling, >composting, agricultural community who are trying to work along posive >lines? I think not! Please try to stick to the truth...even if the truth >doesn't always seem to serve your seemingly nefarious ends. Mr Walker, You've stated plainly that you disagree with Ms Snow's characterization of your work. From what you've written, though, it's not as clear *what* your specific disagreement is, as nowhere in your statement do you refute any of her specific assertions. We are fortunate that this medium provides such immediate opportunity for you to state your case directly and clear your name. Specifically, which of her assertions do you dispute and why? From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Sep 28 17:32:24 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA18330; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA10730; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id QAA01056 for sanet-real; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 16:18:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id QAA01053 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 16:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s09.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.169]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA08383; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970928131815.007dfeb0@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:18:15 -0700 To: atlintlcom@mindspring.com, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: (no subject) In-Reply-To: <342E6A7F.1799@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 9 When all the trees have been cut down and all the waters have been poisoned and the sun becomes to hot to take and the last fish is caught and all the soil has been made sterile than maybe man well learn you can not eat money. At 10:32 AM 9/28/97 -0400, Clarence W. Walker wrote: >Date: > Sun, 28 Sep 1997 10:06:36 -0400 > From: > Roder Russo >If Henry Ford, Edison and the Wright brothers had listened to their >nay-sayers, we would be travelling by horse and buggy, and reading by >candle light. For those of us who are in the business, risking capital, >making a concerted effort to "do the right thing" w can understand the >difficulty in dealing with idealilst, individuals who are against >everything and for nothing. I honestly believe that we can and will >prevail. > >RR > > From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Sep 28 18:29:09 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA21713; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 18:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA24431; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 18:24:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id RAA03560 for sanet-real; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pearl.mhtc.net (pearl.mhtc.net [208.135.157.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA03557 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hh1122191.direcpc.com (plat-cas1-cs-5.dial.mhtc.net [156.46.19.135]) by pearl.mhtc.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/FNG) with ESMTP id QAA26720; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 16:21:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199709282121.QAA26720@pearl.mhtc.net> From: "D.B.Sullivan" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Organic Dairy Farmers Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 16:16:47 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 10 You Wrote ---------- Joe Brenneman Two Dog Dairy 800 Steel Bridge Road Kalispell, Montana 59901 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Organic Dairy Farmers Date: Friday, September 26, 1997 11:32 PM I'm interested in corresponding with some organic dairy farmers, particularly anyone not located next to a large population center and involved in processing and marketing their products as well as producing organic milk. ============= I am forward your email to CROPP Cooperative, Organic Valley tm Family of Farms 507n W Main Street PO Box 159 La Farge , Wi 54639 1-608-625-2602 They can give you plenty of leads and contacts organic@mwt.net From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Sep 28 19:29:33 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA23314; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:29:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA06476; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id RAA02509 for sanet-real; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA02506 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fpfzqlga (user-38lcal1.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.42.161]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02027; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <342EC849.734@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:12:41 -0400 From: "Clarence W. Walker" Reply-To: atlintlcom@mindspring.com Organization: Atlanta Int'l Communications, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sal CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: (no subject) References: <3.0.2.32.19970928131815.007dfeb0@rain.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 11 sal wrote: > When all the trees have been cut down and all the waters have been poisoned and the sun becomes to hot to take and the last fish is caught and all the soil has been made sterile then maybe man will learn you can not eat money. SAL, Can you please illucidate, this is very heavy and I want to be very sure that I understand your point here. With over 12,000 miles travelled in the past year, thousands spent out of my pocket, countless hours spent establishing two list, an international professional trade society, a free conference pending this month for which I have borne the costs and not one penny charged during the past three years towards such interests I just want to be sure I haven't missed something. I'm sure that the many associations, organizations, politicians, and countless others on the pay rolls of the waste haulers, landfill operators, and "recyclers" never accept their millions ....right? As for WASTENOT and the International Composting Association....not one single penny has ever been charged or accepted and there is NO outside association, affiliation,funding, or underwriting of ANY nature... and never has been! From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Sep 28 20:30:02 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA23919; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 20:30:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA17187; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 20:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id TAA06242 for sanet-real; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gold.wvnet.edu (gold.wvnet.edu [129.71.2.25]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id TAA06239 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wisent (129.71.87.12) by gold.wvnet.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.1B73C110@gold.wvnet.edu>; 28 Sep 1997 19:09:56 -0400 From: MEBUCKNER@wnpb.wvnet.edu (Marian Buckner) To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:10:02 -0400 Subject: Farming at Risk Because of Growth Message-ID: Organization: WISe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-ID: X-Gateway: NASTA Gate 2.0 beta 2 for FirstClass(R) Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 12 Can you help with answers to any of the following? I am gathering info for a possible small research project. This proposed project would research bringing in new rural infrastructure or support services to help make farming continue to be viable. A few of our agricultural support services have left because not enough of an agricultural base was left for their particular business to be profitable. Our rural area is very threatened by growth, but still holding its own for the time being. Here are my questions: 1. Do you know of anyone that has done such a study? Or anyone researching the area of rural infrastructure and agriculture support businesses or industries? 2. Do you know of books or journal articles that discuss this subject? 3. Do you know of any related experiences in other areas--successful or unsuccessful? 4. Please comment on the following ideas I've received from others: * Attract a county-based storage facility to our new industrial park (they're looking for high-tech businesses for the most part) that would process grains on the premises (eg, flour mill or oil extracting process). Question: What about nuisance aspects (noise, dust, trucks)? How does one find out how large an agricultural base is needed for such a facility to be profitable? * Attract farm equipment dealers with a diversified line for both farmers and suburban customers--lawn and garden, snowmobiles). Question: Will farm equipment dealers resist this because they want their farm equipment to be primary? *Create a marketing group that could buy and sell blocks of grain from a number of farmers and lock in on better-priced markets. Question: Will farmers buy into this? They tend to want to be independent and act on their own. 5. Do you have other suggestions for "farmers on the urban edge"? Thanks! Marian Buckner From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Sep 29 12:51:41 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA11498; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:51:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA06700; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id LAA05690 for sanet-real; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:24:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from adams.berk.net (root@adams.berk.net [205.230.140.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA05687 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [208.224.73.68] (gb1ip8.bcn.net [208.224.73.68]) by adams.berk.net (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07696 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:24:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: csana@bcn.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:25:05 +0100 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: csana@bcn.net (csana) Subject: Farmer position avail. Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 13 WANTED: Experienced organic farmer(s) for fifth season, 105 member CSA with great potential for expansion in a growing community. "New England 27" greenhouse, ten+ acres excellent soil available on the site of the New England Small Farm Institute, offering resources and technical assistance. Mail letter of interest to: Core Group c/o B. Weiss 350 Old Enfield Road Belchertown, MA 01007 For further information call 413-323-4531. Elizabeth Keen CSA of North America 57 Jug End Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 (413) 528-4374 csana@bcn.net http://www.umass.edu/umext/CSA CSA West/ Community Supported Agriculture A Program of Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) PO Box 363 / Davis, California 95617 916-756-8518 / 916-756-7857 (fax) csawest@caff.org http://www.caff.org From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Sep 29 14:16:14 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA03114; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA29689; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id MAA09022 for sanet-real; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:45:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pearl.mhtc.net (pearl.mhtc.net [208.135.157.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id MAA09019 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hh1122191.direcpc.com (plat-cas2-cs-1.dial.mhtc.net [156.46.19.182]) by pearl.mhtc.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/FNG) with ESMTP id LAA11032; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:43:35 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199709291643.LAA11032@pearl.mhtc.net> From: "D.B.Sullivan" To: , Subject: Re: market price-Ginseng Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:38:51 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 14 ---------- From: Alogin@aol.com To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: market price Date: Thursday, September 25, 1997 4:46 PM Hi everyone. I have just one question. What is the ginseng price in the market? (fresh and dried) If anybody has the information, please reply. thank you... Try Marthon UWEX , Wisconsin this is where most of all ginseng is grown. MARATHON (C) Barnett, Ken Phone 715-847-5258 fax 715-847-5279 email: KEN.BARNETT@ces.uwex.edu From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Sep 29 15:22:34 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA04160; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:22:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA17606; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:17:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id OAA12758 for sanet-real; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:14:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [198.53.172.12]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id OAA12755 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from i1-164.islandnet.com [198.53.172.164] by mail.islandnet.com with smtp id m0xFkIg-0006dhC for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:11:16 -0800 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: dragon@mail.islandnet.com (lischeron) Subject: unsubscribe Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 15 unsubscribe sanet-mg From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Sep 29 20:23:59 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA09937; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA04805; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id TAA25418 for sanet-real; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cyclops-e0.cogent.net (cyclops-e0.cogent.net [204.250.78.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id TAA25415 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:13:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mycomputer.cogent.net (p30.annex1.mfs.cogent.net [207.137.176.40]) by cyclops-e0.cogent.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA13199 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970929161756.006b4588@mail.cogent.net> X-Sender: inseason@mail.cogent.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:17:56 -0700 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Mark Thompson Subject: farming on urban fringe Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 16 In response to the request for information about farming on the urban fringe, you might find some useful information and inspiration in a story about how thanks to farmers markets, some farmers are managing to hang on in a thoroughly urban setting -- the heart of Los Angeles. The story can be found on the "In Season" web site at . Regards, Mark Thompson Publisher, In Season From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Sep 29 21:20:30 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA11678; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA17723; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id SAA24388 for sanet-real; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from green.indy.net (green.indy.net [199.3.65.18]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id SAA24385 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from indy4.indy.net (root@indy4.indy.net [199.3.65.4]) by green.indy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA03795; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:50:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (ip75-189.ts.indy.net [199.3.75.189]) by indy4.indy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA17115; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:50:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <343030D0.16C0@indy.net> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:50:57 -0500 From: Rich Molini Reply-To: richmo@indy.net Organization: IndyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-IndyNet (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marian Buckner CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Farming at Risk Because of Growth References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 17 Marian Buckner wrote: > > Can you help with answers to any of the following? I am gathering > info for a possible small research project. > This proposed project would research bringing in new rural > infrastructure or support services to help make farming continue to be > viable. A few of our agricultural support services have left because > not enough of an agricultural base was left for their particular > business to be profitable. Our rural area is very threatened by > growth, but still holding its own for the time being. > > Here are my questions: > 1. Do you know of anyone that has done such a study? Or anyone > researching the area of rural infrastructure and agriculture support > businesses or industries? > > 2. Do you know of books or journal articles that discuss this subject? > > 3. Do you know of any related experiences in other areas--successful > or unsuccessful? > > 4. Please comment on the following ideas I've received from others: > * Attract a county-based storage facility to our new industrial park > (they're looking for high-tech businesses for the most part) that would > process grains on the premises (eg, flour mill or oil extracting > process). > Question: What about nuisance aspects (noise, dust, trucks)? How > does one find out how large an agricultural base is needed for such a > facility to be profitable? > > * Attract farm equipment dealers with a diversified line for both > farmers and suburban customers--lawn and garden, snowmobiles). > Question: Will farm equipment dealers resist this because they want > their farm equipment to be primary? > > *Create a marketing group that could buy and sell blocks of grain from > a number of farmers and lock in on better-priced markets. > Question: Will farmers buy into this? They tend to want to be > independent and act on their own. > > 5. Do you have other suggestions for "farmers on the urban edge"? > > Thanks! Marian Buckner Marian, I have already read David Sullivan's reply to your inquiry, and I believe there are numerous success stories like those that he relayed and I hope to see many more. However, there are thousands of failures in this arena, because if we really don't address the root cause there is little accomplished. The root cause of rural decline is the loss of producers. When it becomes necessary to farm 1200 acres in Central Indiana to make a living growing and selling grain, there are too few producers and too many doing the same thing, in this case growing grain to ship off to some remote location to feed livestock or make oil. What many suggest you need to ensure the continued viability of the rural communities is 10 - 120 acre farms engaging in diversified activities. Ten farm families will repopulate the countryside and produce markets for all kinds of goods. These 10 farms however cannot only produce corn and beans. They have to produce real food products like beef, milk, chicken, eggs, jellies, jams, or produce. They have to add value to their products much like the pasta producers mentioned by David. Markets exist in this country for wholesome, nutritious, and healthy food, and people are willing to pay a premium price for beef, pork, or chicken that has taste or eggs that have color or apples that are crisp and fresh or real peaches that weren't designed to withstand a 5 foot fall. The added plus is that real food is produced understanding and respecting the natural ecosystems. Real food is grown organically and sustainably. Monsanto adds no value to an organic crop. No herbicides were needed to control undesirable plants. Cargill sold that organic producer no fertilizer where the money would return to headquarters and serve the executive committee. When you put sweat equity into cultivation and cover crops and a quality rotation to control pests the money stays in the community and Dow wonders why you didn't need their spray schedule. Produce, sell ,and consume your food locally that is the key to the rejuvenation of rural America. When the consumer knows the folks who produced those eggs and they know that those folks did not foul the air or add atrazine or Roundup to the creek they will repect and compliment them with a premium. They will build a relationship of trust and that trust will be contagious so that the local hardware store will remain because that 20 cents less at Walmart will not make a darn bit of difference. Think globally and shop and chew locally. Thanks, Rich From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 03:24:07 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id DAA17420; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 03:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id DAA02771; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 03:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id CAA07395 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 02:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pixie.udw.ac.za (pixie.udw.ac.za [192.96.21.252]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id CAA07389 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 02:26:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bassa.udw.ac.za by pixie.udw.ac.za with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0xFvij-0003Q3C; Tue, 30 Sep 97 08:23 SST Message-ID: <343042FC.155F@PIXIE.UDW.AC.ZA> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:08:28 -0700 From: A F Bassa Organization: Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Durban-Westville X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: unsubscribe References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 18 unsubscribe sanet-mg From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 06:19:23 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA19144; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:19:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA27953; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id EAA10802 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from intrepid.net (intrepid.net [204.71.127.3]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id EAA10799 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [206.102.67.138] (portshep3-67-98.intrepid.net [206.102.67.98]) by intrepid.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA26569 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:50:36 -0400 X-Sender: igg@intrepid.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:51:11 -0400 To: World Sustainable Agriculture Association From: Intergalactic Garage Subject: "Walking Tractor" Workshop Invitation Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 19 CONTACT: Allan Balliett BIODYNAMICS: Farming and Gardening in the 21st Century (304) 876-2373 (304) 876-9414 FAX biodynamics@biodynamics.com PRESS RELEASE ===== ======= For Immediate Release "Walking Tractors" Offer Gardeners an Economical Way to Increase Productivity If today you garden successfully in a small way and are considering how to manage a much bigger garden for at home use, a walking tractor may be right for you. Your big home garden is producing far more than you need at home and you have begun to sell off excess produce, it is profitable and now you want to expand production and perhaps diversify crops. To make that possible you need to mechanize but may not need a four wheel tractor. A walking tractor may be just what you need to strike the right balance of size, power and flexibility. Eugene Canales, founder of Ferrari Tractor CIE and a columnist for "BIODYNAMICS: Farming and Gardening in the 21st Century" magazine, will present a discussion of walking tractors, their history, development and applications to market gardening and farming in USA and Europe. The many implements that make walking tractors a valuable alternative will be illustrated and described. As an adjunct to this formal presentation there will be a display of machines and implements provided by a BCS distributor who handles a line of walking tractors for the West Virginia area. There is no charge for this lecture/workshop, which is part of the 1997 Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Conference, Oct 3-5 at the Claymont Court Agricultural Project, outside of Charles Town, WV. A reservation is required to attend this event. Call 876-6818 for more information and to reserve your spot. # # # =========================================================================== To Post to the Bio-Dynamics Mailing list: bd-l@biodynamics.com =========================================================================== Subscribe to BIODYNAMICS: Farming and Gardening in the 21st Century the Bi-Monthly Magazine about Developments in the Art and Science of Biodyamics. Noted viticulturist, orchardist and Biodynamic growing consultant, Alan York, editor. BIODYNAMICS: Farming and Gardening in the 21st Century is the journal of the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association of America. 6 issues a year for $35 1-800-516-7797 The Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association of America POB 550, Kimberton, PA 19442 USA VISA/AMEX/MasterCard accepted (International Subscriptions are higher. Contact the BDFGA for a quote). ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. Opinions expressed in mail through this list, whether by the moderator or by list members, are simply the opinions of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the BDFGA. ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. The BD-L e-mail list is open to all and subscribing is easy: simply send an e-mail to: bd-l@biodynamics.com and put "subscribe BD-L" in the Subject. (I'll need your name and physical address in the Body of the message, but it will be released to no one) You'll soon start getting messages. If you don't like what you see, send another e-mail to: bd-l@biodynamics.com and put "unsubscribe BD-L" in the Subject. Check out the Biodynamic Association WEB PAGE: http://www.biodynamics.com Thank you, Allan Balliett, Moderator, BD-L =============================== From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 07:24:39 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA19831; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA06765; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id EAA10807 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from intrepid.net (intrepid.net [204.71.127.3]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id EAA10804 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [206.102.67.138] (portshep3-67-98.intrepid.net [206.102.67.98]) by intrepid.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA26580 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:50:39 -0400 X-Sender: igg@intrepid.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:49:42 -0400 To: World Sustainable Agriculture Association From: Intergalactic Garage Subject: SPADING MACHINE CLINIC in TRI-STATE AREA Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 20 CONTACT: Allan Balliett POB 3047 Shepherdstown, WV 25443 (304) 876-2373 (304) 876-9414 FAX biodynamics@biodynamics.com PRESS RELEASE ===== ======= For Immediate Release "Spading Machine" Performs Primary Tillage with Minimal Disturbance to Biological Activity in Farm Soils The Italian spading machine represents the greatest improvement in tillage tools of the twentieth century. This 3pt mounted tractor implement allows a hard packed field to be converted to a deeply dug, well aerated subsoil, and a crumbled surface ready for planting in a single slow pass with a low horse power tractor. While accomplishing this remarkable result no plow pan is formed, existing hard pans are destroyed and top soil is kept on top, undiluted with subsoil. In addition, green manures and crop residues are incorporated into the soil at the most biologically active depth. Primary and secondary tillage can be accomplished in a single, slow, pass. On October 4, 1997, Eugene F. Canales, the person who introduced this remarkable machine to the USA and a columnist for "BIODYNAMICS: Farming and Gardening in the 21st Century" magazine, will conduct a clinic on the correct use and maintenance of spaders. Mr. Canales, owner of Ferrari Tractor CIE, will explain how to select, how to mount, how to adjust, how to operate and how to care for a spading machine, whether it is a 30 inch model digging 8 inches deep on a 15 HP mini tractor or a 20 ft. model for a 200 HP field tractor digging 14 to 20 inches deep. There is no charge for this clinic, which is part of the 1997 Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Conference, Oct 3-5 at the Claymont Court Agricultural Project, outside of Charles Town, WV. A reservation is required to attend this clinic. Call 876-6818 for more information, times, and to reserve your seat. # # # =========================================================================== To Post to the Bio-Dynamics Mailing list: bd-l@biodynamics.com =========================================================================== Subscribe to BIODYNAMICS: Farming and Gardening in the 21st Century the Bi-Monthly Magazine about Developments in the Art and Science of Biodyamics. Noted viticulturist, orchardist and Biodynamic growing consultant, Alan York, editor. BIODYNAMICS: Farming and Gardening in the 21st Century is the journal of the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association of America. 6 issues a year for $35 1-800-516-7797 The Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association of America POB 550, Kimberton, PA 19442 USA VISA/AMEX/MasterCard accepted (International Subscriptions are higher. Contact the BDFGA for a quote). ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. Opinions expressed in mail through this list, whether by the moderator or by list members, are simply the opinions of the poster and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the BDFGA. ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. The BD-L e-mail list is open to all and subscribing is easy: simply send an e-mail to: bd-l@biodynamics.com and put "subscribe BD-L" in the Subject. (I'll need your name and physical address in the Body of the message, but it will be released to no one) You'll soon start getting messages. If you don't like what you see, send another e-mail to: bd-l@biodynamics.com and put "unsubscribe BD-L" in the Subject. Check out the Biodynamic Association WEB PAGE: http://www.biodynamics.com Thank you, Allan Balliett, Moderator, BD-L =============================== From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 07:25:17 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA19842; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA06880; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id GAA12982 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x10.boston.juno.com ([205.231.101.25]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id GAA12979 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from dan.worley@juno.com) by x10.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id GHE23869; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:07:21 EDT To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:03:58 AST Subject: Richard Wolfson : GE news Message-ID: <19970930.060643.27943.3.DAN.WORLEY@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,8-11,13,15,17-18,20-25,27-28,30-32,34,36,38-40, 42-45,47,49-51,53-54,56-57,59-60,62,64-66,68,70-93 From: dan.worley@juno.com (Daniel D. Worley) Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 21 --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Wolfson To: info@natural-law.ca Subject: GE news Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:56:26 -0400 Message-ID: HERE ARE TWO NEWS STORIES THAT RECENTLY CAME OUT OF A EUROPEAN NEWSLETTER: UNHAPPY FARMER A Canadian farmer recently phoned in to take part in a radio programme (CBC September =9197) discussing labelling of GM crops. He went on to say how unhappy he was with the Roundup Ready Canola that he was in the process of harvesting. He reported that he was only getting 15 bushels per acre, after getting 30 the week before from the fields seeded with conventional canola. He had seeded RR Canola because he =91wanted to clean u= p this field=92. The problem with that was that the weeds the Roundup were guaranteed to clean up were still there. On top of that, he said, he had grown some RR canola the year before and kept it segregated, but this year the industry told him not to bother segregating the RR canola because it had been approved in Japan and Europe. Now they tell him that the European and Japanese buyers don't want it, approved or not, because the public don't want it - but now it is all mixed in with his regular canola! The radio station was CBC Regina, the show was on air from 1-2 p.m. local time, on Sept. 2nd and the host was Lindy Thorsen. Peter McCann, an industry front man (pres. of AgWest Biotech, a publicly funded industry lobby group) was a guest on the show as was Brewster Kneen, who is an anti-ge campaigner. BRAZIL SAYS NO Brazilian agriculture officials will meet on October 2nd to discuss Brazil's ban on imports of soybeans containing GMOs. At present, the entry into Brazil of any soybeans containing genetically modified material is prohibited; providing a source of GM-free processed soybeans for other countries. Brazil itself has said that the main reason for the ban is that some third countries who are significant buyers of the processed soybean do impose restrictions on such products. Without imports of U.S. soybeans, which some say could total around 2 million tons, sources say the Brazilian [soya bean], crushing industry could shut down for several months, potentially from Nov. 1997 to Feb. 1998, when new-crop supplies come on line. Brazil's own GE free soya beans were in such high demand this year that they sold out in record time. ** Brazil is under immense pressure from the US to end its ban, please send as many faxes as possible to the Brazilian Agriculture Minister, Arlindo Porto, before October 2nd, urging him not to give in. Explain to him the US strategy and tell him that Europe doesn=92t want transgenic soya from the US and that Brazil shouldn't be pressured into buying something that nobody else wants. His fax number is: +55-61-225 9046. If you have the time fax Brazilian press also. For their details email: martin.rickinger@apis.com.br he would also like to hear about any faxes that you send to Arlindo Porto. _________________________________________________________ Richard Wolfson, PhD Campaign for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods Natural Law Party, 500 Wilbrod Street Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2 Tel. 613-565-8517 Fax. 613-565-1596 email: rwolfson@concentric.net Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html contains more information on genetic engineering. To receive regular news on genetic engineering and this campaign, please send an email message with 'subscribe GE' in the subject line to rwolfson@concentric.net To unsubscribe, please send the message 'unsubscribe GE' __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ --------- End forwarded message ---------- From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 08:18:46 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA20605; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA16570; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id HAA14362 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:09:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net [203.108.7.41]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id HAA14359 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oznet02.ozemail.com.au (oznet02.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.124]) by server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA01741; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:09:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (modem72-213.one.net.au [203.56.72.213]) by oznet02.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA16840; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:09:17 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3430DD28.1152@ozemail.com.au> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:06:16 +1000 From: "Marsupial Landscapes P.L." X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Efficacy of hot water on weeds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 22 -- Marsupial Landscapes Pty Ltd. mailto:marsup@ozemail.com.au Ph: 61-2-99056844 Fax : 61-2-99056244 I have been browsing the web for other persons interested in the use of hot water for controlling weeds. I have been looking at alternatives to the use of biocides for the control of weeds in the built environment ie open public space. There appears to be one or two companies world wide who have developed apparatus for the application of hot water to weeds. The apparatus as they stand at the moment have a few major flaws. - They use in excess of 4 litres per minute of water therefore requiring a cumbersome amount of water to be transported and a continual time consuming refill on avearge every 1 to 2 hours. - The heat exchanger is deisel fuelled; being costly, energy inefficient noisy and potentially polluting. If we are looking for sustainable and non polluting alternatives a cleaner energy source is required. - The consequential size of the apparatus make them unable to unobtrusively operate in the public domain and the volume of water consumed and consequentially out poured causes excessive runoff on paved areas and floods garden beds. -Tractor mounted apparatus are unable to apply control to the crop rows. Trials I have carried out have shown that Hot water at tempertures in excess of 75 degrees C will cause permanent cell collapse within 5 seconds on a majority of soft tissued plants above ground. Controlling more persistant stoloniferous, rhizomateous, corm and bulb weeds requires heating the soil to temperatures in excess of 65 degrees C. To do this the hot water must have time to penetrate the rhizosphere and be of an application temperature high enough to still be of effect at the required depth ie upto 75mm (3"). There is some concern for the other organisms present in the rhizosphere, but worm counts a few days following application are encouraging, probably due to their feeding on resultant dead tissue. Microflora counts have not been done. Mr Hawkins, you mention in correspondance that you are familiar with hot water treatment of weeds. I would be pleased if you could refer me to any published articles, preferably prior to 1991, on the method. I am running overtime on research and would be greatfull for an early response. Jeremy Winer Sydney. From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 09:46:07 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA21957; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA02975; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id HAA14930 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from arcmail.agric.za (arc1.agric.za [155.240.199.21]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id HAA14921 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:43:39 -0400 (EDT) From: RFOWLER@cedara1.agric.za Received: from CEDARA1.AGRIC.ZA ([155.240.105.10]) by arcmail.agric.za (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id MAA22874 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:01:58 +0200 Received: from CEDARA1/SpoolDir by CEDARA1.AGRIC.ZA (Mercury 1.21); 30 Sep 97 13:43:23 +0200 Received: from SpoolDir by CEDARA1 (Mercury 1.30); 30 Sep 97 13:38:02 +0200 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:37:57 +0200 Subject: "Walking (Animal?) Tractor" Workshop Invitation X-Confirm-Reading-To: X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <10CA2F76559@CEDARA1.AGRIC.ZA> Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 23 Are these bovine or equine tractors? Surely the economical sustainable enviro-friendly biodynamic way to enter the 21st century is by using animal draft power (and by- products)! Richard Fowler ********************************************************************* N.B. PLEASE NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBERS BELOW !!!!!!!!!!!!! ********************************************************************** Richard Fowler East Coast Co-ordinator Farming Systems Research & Technology Transfer Grain Crops Institute : Agricultural Research Council P/bag X 9059 PIETERMARITZBURG 3200 SOUTH AFRICA PHONE: 27 (0) 331 3559410 (alternatives 3559409 / 3559452) FAX: 27 (0) 331 431571 E-mail: rfowler@cedara1.agric.za ********************************************************************** From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 10:18:02 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA22570; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:18:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA10044; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id JAA19140 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bud.peinet.pe.ca (root@bud.peinet.pe.ca [198.167.1.1]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id JAA19135 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:08:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WS.cs.upei.ca (mt-as02.peinet.pe.ca [198.167.12.102]) by bud.peinet.pe.ca (8.8.6/8.6.15) with SMTP id KAA23408; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:08:21 -0300 (ADT) Message-ID: <3430FA33.243B@cycor.ca> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:10:11 -0300 From: Don Harris Reply-To: dharris@bud.peinet.pe.ca Organization: University of UPEI X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu CC: dharris@upei.ca Subject: Ethanol from grain Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 24 Dear SANetters Can anyone point me to a report(s) detailing the economics of processing grain into ethanol? Is it feasible or are do the input energies exceed the output energy. Thanks, -- Don Harris Technical Information Specialist University of PEI, Charlottetown, PEI Off: 902-566-0794 fax:902-566-0756 From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 11:12:45 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA23480; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:12:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA23271; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id IAA17608 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:54:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id IAA17604 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23009; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:54:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:54:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" X-Sender: san@cliff To: A F Bassa cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: unsubscribing from sanet In-Reply-To: <343042FC.155F@PIXIE.UDW.AC.ZA> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 25 On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, someone wrote: > unsubscribe sanet-mg > To unsubscribe, send a message to: almanac@ces.ncsu.edu In the BODY of the message, type ONLY: unsubscribe sanet-mg Please contact me if you have any problems. Andy Clark, Ph.D. SAN Coordinator c/o AFSIC, Room 304 USDA/ARS/National Agricultural Library 10301 Baltimore Ave. Beltsville, MD 20705-2351 san@nal.usda.gov PH : (301) 504-6425 FAX: (301) 504-6409 http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/san/ From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 11:37:26 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA24801; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA00433; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:32:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id JAA20960 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vcgi.uvm.edu (vcgi.uvm.edu [132.198.131.51]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id JAA20957 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:34:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vcgi.uvm.edu; id AA04304; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:46:00 -0400 Message-Id: <3430FED3.5B85@vcgi.uvm.edu> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:29:55 -0400 From: Leslie Pelch Reply-To: lesliep@vcgi.uvm.edu Organization: Vermont Center for Geographic Information X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: urban edible landscape response Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 26 I would like to share another response I just received: John Fisk wrote: > > In reply to your inquiry: > > There is a project in Berkeley CA, hardly the NorthEast, called Edible > Schoolyard and has been instigated by the Chez Panisse (sp?) Foundation. > It uses the schoolyard to grow food for the school lunch program with > maximum participation by the students. > > Their phone number is:510 548-1335 > > Best of luck, > John Fisk > Organic Farming Specialist > Michigan State University > fiskjohn@pilot.msu.edu > -- Leslie Pelch Vermont Center for Geographic Information 206 Morrill Hall, UVM Burlington, VT 05405-0106 (802) 656-4277 http://geo-vt.uvm.edu/vsdp/vsdp.htm From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 12:09:50 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA27171; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA10416; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id KAA23888 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.1stnet.com (root@mail1.1stnet.com [206.104.32.40]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA23884 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bruce (ppp26.1stnet.com [206.104.46.26]) by dancer.1stnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA12781 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:25:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3431096B.6D28@1stnet.com> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:15:08 -0500 From: "Susan K. Snow" Reply-To: sksnow@1stnet.com Organization: Pollution Solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re:Efficacy of hot water on weeds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 27 I do NOT use hot water directly on weeds, although I see no reason why it would not work. I use boiling hot water mixed with Tabasco or other hot pepper sauces on fire ant mounds. The ants have not returned to my property for 7 years. The only drawback is that boiling hot water sterilizes the soil and kills the vegetation in that particular area. Still, I would rather have sterilized soil than poisoned soil, groundwater, and a poisoned environmment. Susan Snow From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 13:14:52 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA01667; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:14:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA26835; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id MAA29497 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:23:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amauta.rcp.net.pe (amauta.rcp.net.pe [161.132.5.5]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id MAA29494 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 200.1.183.227(src addr [200.1.183.227]) (1003 bytes) by amauta.rcp.net.pe via sendmail with P\:smtp/R:inet_hosts/T:smtp (sender: ) id for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:15:25 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.96 1997-Jun-2 #7 built 1997-Aug-15) Message-ID: <34310996.34F4@amauta.rcp.net.pe> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:18:08 -0500 From: Sharon Stevenson Reply-To: ssteve@amauta.rcp.net.pe X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Walking Tractor -online? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 28 Re Walking Tractor Workshop, will any of the information then be put online somewhere? Is there any information online already available (and I guess I'm being lazy...promise to hit Altavista soon!) -- Sharon Stevenson Mail U.S.: 1680 Monterey Rd. 10-L Tel/fax (51-1) 444-4749 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Lima, Peru (562) 598-0460 ---------------------- Our best hope for civility? The Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated--for the good of us all! :-) From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 13:24:26 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA01845; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA29058; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id LAA27388 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpgate.uvm.edu (smtpgate.uvm.edu [132.198.101.121]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id LAA27385 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.198.176.181] (132.198.176.181) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.4566A520@smtpgate.uvm.edu>; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:30:36 -0400 X-Sender: bholtzma@pop.uvm.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:53:42 -0500 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Beth Holtzman Subject: News Release: Grant $$ Available Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 29 September 30, 1997 EDITORS: Please distribute this news release via on-line and print newsletters, news discussion groups, etc. If you have any questions, please contact me at 802-656-0554 or bholtzma@zoo.uvm.edu Thank you, Beth Holtzman N E W S R E L E A S E Date: September 30, 1997 Contact: Beth Holtzman For Release: Immediately 802-656-0554 New "SEED" Grants Available to Northeast Producers Burlington, VT - The Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program seeks producers to farm-test alternative practices developed through recent research projects. Through its new Special Evaluation, Education and Demonstration (SEED) farmer grant initiative, SARE will provide grants to producers willing to try out selected practices. SARE-supported research has shown that these practices improve farm profitability, reduce pesticide use, protecte soil, and/or enhance farm family quality of life. "We want to provide support for farmers to implement a practice, find out how it works under their particular conditions, and share that information with other producers," Northeast Region SARE Coordinator Fred Magdoff says. "Because of differences in soils, climate and the availability of labor and machinery on individual farms, not every practice or system will necessarily work well on every farm," Magdoff explains. The SEED initiative is part of the Northeast SARE's continuing, six-year-old Farmer/Grower Grant Program. Through the Farmer/ Grower Grant Program, SARE helps producers conduct farm-based experiments to answer their own production and marketing questions. "There are now two ways to participate in the SARE Farmer Grant program," says Magdoff. "One is to use practices developed through previous, SARE-sponsored research - these are the new SEED grants. The other is to come up with your own idea." Farmer/Grower Grant proposals may address any food, non-food or forest crop production or marketing issue. Project activities may include small research trials, educational activities and demonstrations. The goal is to develop systems and practices that promote stewardship of natural resources, prevent agricultural pollution and improve farm profitability. SARE will award up to $150,000 through the Northeast producer grant programs. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to farmers in the 12-state region. The Northeast region includes: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Washington D.C. To obtain a grant application, write the SARE Program at 10 Hills Building, University of Vermont, Burlington Vermont, 05405-0082, call 802-656-0471 or print it or download it from our website at http://www.uvm.edu/~nesare/FARMCFP.html. ************************************* Beth Holtzman Communications Specialist Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program Hills Building -- Carrigan Drive University of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405-0082 Phone: 802-656-0554 Fax: 802-656-4656 ************************************** ************************************* Beth Holtzman Communications Specialist Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program Hills Building -- Carrigan Drive University of Vermont Burlington, VT 05405-0082 Phone: 802-656-0554 Fax: 802-656-4656 ************************************** From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 14:21:19 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA02844; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA13590; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id NAA01662 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:24:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id NAA01659 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01890; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:24:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:24:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" X-Sender: san@cliff To: sanet-mg cc: Wallace Institute Subject: Alternative Agriculture News, 10/97 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 30 Alternative Agriculture News October, 1997 Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture 9200 Edmonston Road, #117 Greenbelt, MD 20770 (301) 441-8777 E-mail: hawiaa@access.digex.net World Wide Web: http://www.hawiaa.org * * * If You Are Interested in Sustainable Agriculture... In addition to this monthly newsletter, the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture publishes the American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal of research on alternative agriculture. It is a scientific forum for disseminating technical, economic, and social research findings about the character and requirements of alternative agriculture systems. A comparison of organic versus conventional grain production in the Mid-Atlantic region, with an economic and farming system overview, highlights the most recent issue (Volume 12, No. 1) of AJAA. Other articles examine a laboratory experiment involving nutrient release from decomposing crop residues; farm structure, market structure and agricultural sustainability goals in New York state dairying; farmers' commitment to continued use of the late spring soil nitrogen test; local food systems and sustainable communities; and community-controlled economic development as a strategic vision for the sustainable agriculture movement. Subscriptions to AJAA are $44 for libraries, $24 for individuals, and $12 for students; contact the Wallace Institute, 9200 Edmonston Road, #117, Greenbelt, MD 20770; (301) 441-8777. Table of Contents: U.S. Geological Survey Finds Widespread Pesticides in Water 1 Chemicals Possible Cause of Rise in Children's Cancer 2 Wallace Board Approves New Journal Editor 3 President's Council Members Named 3 Positions 3 Final Conference Maintains Funding for Sustainable Ag 4 USDA Creates New Office of Pest Management 4 Farmers Take the Lead in Protecting Ohio Watershed 4 Nominations Sought for Steward of Land Award 5 Resources 5 Upcoming Events 6 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FINDS WIDESPREAD PESTICIDES IN WATER The first cycle of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment has found widespread pesticides in streams and groundwater, with most of the 84 pesticide compounds investigated detected in those waters at least once, according to a preliminary summary of the assessment's first results. The assessment was conducted on 5,000 samples of groundwater and surface water in 20 major hydrologic basins from 1991 to 1995, predominantly in agricultural and urban settings. The data collected are the most extensive ever compiled for such a wide range of pesticides and locations. The 84 pesticides investigated account for approximately 75% of the agricultural uses and a substantial portion of urban and suburban uses in the United States. The assessment found pesticides more often in streams than in groundwater, with most streams containing low-level mixtures of pesticides during much of the year. Other findings include: -- At least one pesticide was found in every stream and in half the wells sampled. There was an average of seven to eight pesticides in each stream sample. -- The same herbicides were most commonly found in streams and groundwater: atrazine and metolachlor, used primarily on corn and soybeans; prometon, used primarily in urban and suburban settings; and simazine, used in both agricultural and non- agricultural settings. -- Insecticides were not found often in groundwater, but those most frequently detected in streams were diazinon, chlopyrifos, and carbaryl, all of which have substantial urban and suburban use. -- In most agricultural areas, the highest levels of pesticides, often above drinking water standards, occur as seasonal pulses lasting from a few days to several months. The final assessment and other publications related to the assessment are expected to be available by the end of this year. For more information, contact Tim Miller, Chief of the National Water Quality Assessment, at (703) 648-5716. CHEMICALS POSSIBLE CAUSE OF RISE IN CHILDREN'S CANCER The rate of cancer among American children has been rising almost one percent a year for decades, with many experts suspecting "the increase may be partly the result of growing exposure to new chemicals in the environment," according to The New York Times (September 29, 1997). "Although the causes are not known and are probably many, some experts say, toxins in the air, food, dust, soil and drinking water are prime suspects." According to Dr. Philip Landrigan, senior adviser to the EPA's office of children's health, "the strong probability exists that environmental factors are playing a role." In their research, experts will probably examine "the estimated 75,000 new synthetic chemicals introduced in the last half century, the emissions from cars, the pesticides in foods and in neighborhoods -- the whole collection of chemicals out there, mostly untested for toxicity to humans." If there is a link between childhood cancer and chemicals, the results could be an expansion of federally supported research and eventually, tighter controls on pesticides, toxic wastes, and other chemicals, according to the article. "I'm talking about new research on air pollutants, water pollutants and pesticides, and their effects on children," said EPA Administrator Carol Browner. She also promised to pursue better interdisciplinary and collaborative studies of suspected environmental causes and mechanisms of childhood cancer. WALLACE BOARD APPROVES NEW JOURNAL EDITOR AT MID-YEAR MEETING The Wallace Institute's Board of Directors, at its mid-year meeting in Salinas, California, on September 5-6, approved the appointment of Dr. Robert I. Papendick to be the new Editor of American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, the Institute's quarterly, peer-reviewed journal of research on alternative agriculture. Dr. Papendick, currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Crop and Soil Science at Washington State University, had previously been a research soil scientist with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service for almost 30 years. Dr. Papendick, who assumes the editorship in January, 1998, succeeds Dr. Willie Lockeretz, Research Professor at Tufts University, who has edited AJAA since its inception in 1986. After a reception on September 5 at the Emma Prusch Farm Park in San Jose, the Board of Directors met on September 6 at the Rural Development Center, directed by Jose Montenegro, a member of the Wallace Board. The Center, a project of the Association for Community Based Education, runs a Small Farm Education Program, a community-based agricultural education program designed to meet the needs and aspirations of low-income people seeking greater self-reliance. After its meeting, the Board toured the Center and sustainable agriculture activities nearby, including the Elkhorn Slough Watershed Project, which seeks to reduce soil erosion and improve water quality in the strawberry fields of the watershed. The Board also toured the organic family farm of Phil Foster in Hollister. WALLACE INSTITUTE NAMES MEMBERS OF PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL Dr. Frederick L. Kirschenmann, President of the Wallace Institute, has announced the members of the 1997-1998 President's Council, formed seven years ago to provide guidance and support for Wallace Institute activities in promoting a more sustainable agricultural system in the United States and abroad. Members are: Dr. Charles Benbrook, Benbrook Consulting Services; Norman A. Berg, Washington Representative, Soil and Water Conservation Society; Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., U.S. House of Representatives; Robert Gray, Resource Management Consultants; Ralph Grossi, President, American Farmland Trust; Dr. R. Jim Hildreth, Elmhurst, IL; Ms. Dana Jackson, Land Stewardship Project; Dr. Dennis R. Keeney, Director, Leopold Center; Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, U.S. Senate; Dr. Ned S. Raun, Stillwater, OK; Ronald L. Rosmann, farmer, Harlan, IA; R. Neil Sampson, Executive Vice President, American Forestry Association; Edward Sills, Pleasant Grove Farms, Pleasant Grove, CA; Dr. David G. Topel, Dean, College of Agriculture and Director of Experiment Station, Iowa State University; and Dr. Stephen Viederman, President, Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation. POSITIONS National Center for Appropriate Technology seeks an Associate Director; applications are available from Jeanne Weiss, NCAT Personnel Office, P.O. Box 3838, Butte, MT 59702; (406) 494- 4572; e-mail jweiss@ncat.org. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development will award fellowships in 1998 to scientists willing to research "Safe Exploitation of Micro-Organisms in Plant/Soil Systems;" applications are due November 21; contact Prof. J.M. Lynch, School of Biological Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, United Kingdom; phone (44) 1-483-259-721; e-mail J.Lynch@Surrey.ac.uk. FINAL CONFERENCE MAINTAINS FUNDING FOR SUSTAINABLE AG PROGRAMS The House-Senate Agriculture Appropriations conference committee last month approved final appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998 that maintain funding levels for most sustainable agriculture programs. Funding levels approved for discretionary programs included: SARE: $8 million was approved for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, the same as last year. SAPDP: $3.3 million was approved for the SARE (Chapter 3) Professional Development Program, the same as last year. ATTRA: $1.3 million was approved for Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, the same as last year. OFPA: $500,000 was approved for the Organic Foods Production Act, the same as last year. Funding for mandatory programs was unchanged from the requested amounts: CFO: $15 million was approved for the new Conservation Farm Option. EQIP: $200 million was approved for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the same as last year. WRP: $164 million was approved for the Wetlands Reserve Program, an increase from last year's appropriation of $119 million. CFSA: $2.5 million was approved for the Community Food Security Act, the same as last year. FRA: $100 million was approved for the Fund for Rural America, the same as last year. USDA CREATES NEW OFFICE OF PEST MANAGEMENT The USDA last month announced the creation of an Office of Pest Management that will serve as the agency's focal point for pesticide regulatory issues, and part of a new approach to minor use pesticides for the USDA and the EPA. The new office is charged with integrating and coordinating pesticide issues within the USDA, along with improving communications with and strengthening the existing network of grower organizations and crop specialists at land grant institutions. The agency can now be more responsive to the agricultural community in developing alternative pest management practices to meet critical needs that develop as a result of the regulatory process, according to Deputy Agriculture Secretary Richard Rominger. FARMERS TAKE THE LEAD IN PROTECTING OHIO WATERSHED Farmers are taking the lead in the Big Walnut Water Quality Partnership, a project designed to protect the natural resources of an important watershed in central Ohio. The initiators and decision-makers of the partnership are farmers and other land owners from the Big Walnut Creek watershed who serve on the board of trustees. "This is the first time that I know of that farmers have been in on a watershed project from the very beginning instead of being told what to do," said Bob Weiler, a farmer from the area. Farmers in the project are committed to soil- conserving farming techniques, other best management practices, and responsible use of pesticides to ensure water quality. Support for the project comes from local, state, and federal agencies, including the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service. NOMINATIONS SOUGHT FOR STEWARD OF THE LAND AWARD American Farmland Trust seeks nominations for its second annual Steward of the Land Award, which recognizes efforts by an individual farmer or farm family in land stewardship, agricultural conservation policy, or the use of environmentally and economically sustainable farming practices. Nominations for the $10,000 award must be received by AFT by December 1. For a brochure and nomination form, contact Shannon Weller, AFT, 1920 N St., NW, #400, Washington, D.C. 20036; (202) 659-5170, ext. 3034. RESOURCES "Sustainable Agriculture in Print: Current Books" is available from Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, National Agricultural Library, 10301 Baltimore Blvd., Beltsville, MD 20705; (301) 504-6559; e-mail afsic@nal.usda.gov. "Free-Range Poultry Production and Marketing" is $39.50 plus $4.50 shipping from Back Forty Books, Dept. A, 26328 Locust Grove Road, Creola, OH 45622; (614) 596-4379. UPCOMING EVENTS October 28-31, "Regenerative Agriculture for the 21st Century" will be held at the Rodale Institute, 611 Siegfriedale Road, Kutztown, PA 19530; contact Jane Fisher at (610) 683-1428; e-mail jfishe@rodaleinst.org. November 1, 2nd Annual Membership Meeting of the Wisconsin Rural Development Center will be held in Verona, WI; contact WRDC, (608) 437-5971. November 1-3, "Teaching Sustainable Agriculture to Students, Apprentices and Farm Workers" will be held at NewFarms, NC 69 Box 62, Rociada, N.M. 87742; (505) 425-5457. November 2-4, "Food Safety, Sufficiency, and Security" will be held in Chicago, IL; contact Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 4420 West Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50014; (515) 292- 2125; e-mail cast@cast-science.org; World Wide Web, http://www.netins.net/showcase/cast/ November 3 is the application deadline for the Center for Agroecology and University of California Extension's course, Apprenticeship in Ecological Horticulture, in 1998; contact Farm and Garden Apprenticeship, UCSC, 1156 High St., Santa Cruz, CA 95064; (408) 459-4140. November 3-4, 9th Annual Symposium and Banquet of the Wildlife Habitat Council will be held in Bethesda, MD; contact WHC, 1010 Wayne Ave., #920; Silver Spring, MD 20910; (301) 588- 8994. November 3-5, Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives will be held in San Diego, CA; contact Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach, (209) 244-4710. November 5-7, Agriculture and Natural Resources Products Tourism Conference will be held in Benton Harbor, MI; contact Bob Neumann, Michigan State University Extension, (517) 432-1555. November 7-8, 5th Small Farm Trade Show and Conference will be held in Columbia, MO; contact Small Farm Today, 1-800-633- 2535. November 7-9, "Mediator Between Heaven & Earth: Towards a New Consciousness of Water" will be held in Pasadena, CA; contact Faith Perry, Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, (909) 625-6720. November 7-9, "California Gold Rush Tour" will be held in Sacramento and several other cities; contact Pacific Northwest Farm Direct Marketing Association, P.O. Box 4612, Pasco, WA 99302; (509) 547-5538. November 14-15, "Preserving Crop Biodiversity and Saving Seeds in the Northeast" will be held in State College, PA; contact Carolyn Sachs, Penn State University, (814) 863-8641. November 14-16, "Local Food, Local Farms, Local Futures," the 12th Annual Sustainable Agriculture Conference, will be held in Flat Rock, N.C.; contact Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, P.O. Box 448, Pittsboro, N.C. 27312; (919) 542-2402; e-mail cfsa@sunsite.unc.edu. November 14-16, "Growing Together: Exploring a New Vision of Agriculture and Community" will be held in Mt. Vernon, WA; contact Washington Tilth Producers, 1-800-731-1143. November 16-19, 6th International Conference of the Greening of Industry Network will be held in Santa Barbara, CA; contact Monica Dunne, School of Environmental Science and Management, 4670 Physical Sciences North, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; (805) 893-7979. November 17-19, "New Opportunities in Composting and Organics Recycling" will be held in Dallas/Forth Worth, TX; contact BioCycle, 1-800-661-4905. November 21-23, Advanced Organic Vegetable Farming Workshop will be held in Hudson Valley, N.Y.; contact Regional Farm & Food Project, 27 Elm St., Albany, N.Y. 12202; (518) 426-9331. From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 15:04:04 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA03681; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA25706; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id LAA25623 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA25620 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:02:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s03.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.163]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA00101; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:03:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970930080253.007a4870@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:02:53 -0700 To: sanet-mg From: sal Cc: smallfarm-outgoing@maat.reeusda.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 31 Center for Urban Agriculture Sept. 16 1997 Dear Santa Barbara Organic Farmer, Recent proposals by both the State and Federal governments are threatening to require that we spend more and more time filling out forms,paying fees,and handling the requirements of an ever growing bureaucracy established to regulate "Organic". there is something wrong when those who are trying to straighten out agriculture are being taxed and burdened with inspections and paperwork while those who continue to pollute and deplete are subsidized and allowed to continue, Many of those who supported the move to have the state and federal governments police our movement and those who sought approval from Uncle Sam have quickly realized that they made the proverbial deal with the devil. Unfortunately it is too late to stop the weels of bureaucracy, we will need to gather together (in the way that this movement was originally built) and ask ourselves some difficult questions. The undersigned invite you to a meeting at 7:00 pm Monday October 6, in the Music Room of the Montessori school located at 401N. fairview ave. (across the street from the Goleta Public Library and Fairview Gardens). Please park in the back parking lot, walk through the gate in the middle of the fence. there is a map on the gate showing the location of the Music Room. Please come join us to both educate ourselves on how the new legislation will effect us and to seek ways that we can help each other through the mire this will create., ------Hey Hey whats that sound every one look whats going down!--------- I grow organic and am certified by CCOF and also have to pay the state of >>>Ca. to sell organic soon the feds will also tax us to sell organic and >>this is way too much regulation. >Do you think organic certification should be eliminated completely? Obviously I can't speak for Sal, but he is one of the people who pays my salary in working for the organization that certifies him. Our members believe in certification, otherwise they wouldn't join. And most are painfully aware of the fraud of which you speak. Our members overwhelmingly supported the state and federal law under the assumption that fraud would be sharply reduced, benefitting both consumers and legitimate organic producers. However, at this point certification in California and most of the rest of the country is optional for those who label their product as organic. Registration fees did not go to enforcement the first year or two ('91-'92) and were instead commingled with the general fund in the state at the time of fiscal gridlock. This led to growing discontent among our members toward the law. While the funds were restored to the program, and things improved, many of our members are still disappointed with what they are getting for the hundreds of thousands of dollars they contribute to the California registration program on top of what we charge them to be certified. Even when certification becomes mandatory for producers who sell more than $5,000 worth of product, people will still have the choice of whether to label their product as organic or not. However, the prospect of the Federal government collecting user fees from growers, and from certifiers who will have no choice but to pass those fees on to the growers, The question then becomes who should bear the cost, and are organic farmers paying their fair share or more than their fair share for doing what they believe is the right thing. >Who should pay for this? Here's an idea. How about a tax on pesticides? Unfair, you say? Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Not if you consider .... and hold on to your chair 'cause i'll say it only once .... that organic farmers use pesticides. That's right. Only a small handful of the vast array of pesticides that are out there, and really never as the only means of crop protection. Most of them are relatively innocuous, like soap, Bt, garlic. Yet in California, the mil tax on a pound of any of those products is the same as the tax on, say, aldicarb, methyl bromide or parathion. Even in simplistic terms, why should farmers pay the same tax on Category III pesticide (the least acutely toxic) as they do on those in Category I (the most toxic)? If a given pesticide causes relatively few injuries, is not persistant on food or in the environment, and causes relatively little collateral damage, pound for pound, where is the justice in taxing that the same as a product that contaminates groundwater, depletes ozone or inhibits cholinesterase in nearby schoolchildren? Our members wanted to see the mil tax applied to funding the enforcement of the organic act, but the legislature received enormous pressure from the agrichemical complex to lower the mil tax during the last legislative session. We were one of the few voices among agricultural producers who favored maintaining the mil tax and fought the efforts to cut it about 25%. >But do you think consumers would want to pay the same >price for your goods if they weren't certified organic? >After all, isn't that what being >organic is really all about? People who truly care about the environment are >willing to make sacrifices. That's why many consumers of organic products are >willing to pay a higher price for those goods. When people buy food produced by methods that pollute water and air, poison farmworkers, kill wildlife and leave higher residual levels of carcinogenic pesticides, they are getting more than what they pay for. They have this choice, and choose overwhelmingly to buy non-organic instead of organic food. Yet most consumers, when surveyed, don't want to cause this kind of destruction. To use economic jargon, organic farmers internalize many if not most of these internal costs. That makes their costs of production higher and therefore requires that they receive a higher price in order to remain economically viable. Organic food is not perfect, but IMHO it is our best alternative. It is not that organic food is too expensive, it is that conventional food doesn't reflect the full cost of production. Production methods for all farmers will improve if we stop penalizing those who protect the environment and make the polluter pay. Sal said ---I don't think organic growers should have to pay one extra cent to grow and sell their organic food as organic. From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 15:18:33 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA04008; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA29511; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id NAA02438 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.1stnet.com (root@mail1.1stnet.com [206.104.32.40]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id NAA02435 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:52:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bruce (ppp25.1stnet.com [206.104.46.25]) by dancer.1stnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA19412 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:51:57 -0500 Message-ID: <343139BF.367B@1stnet.com> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:41:19 -0500 From: "Susan K. Snow" Reply-To: sksnow@1stnet.com Organization: Pollution Solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: composted sewage sludge in organic agriculture? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 32 Dear SANettters, Can anyone tell me if composted sewage sludge (a.k.a. biosolids) is used anywhere in the United States on farms growing crops without manmade chemical pesticides, growth regulators, or manmade fertilizers --that is, in certified organic production? Thanks. Susan Snow consumer of certified organic foods and products From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 18:26:38 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA09254; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA22705; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id RAA14427 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA14424 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:31:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Agrisysdc@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA04039 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970930172631_761209961@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu cc: Agrisys1@aol.com Subject: Global & U.S. Reports on Organic Market MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.20636.emout16.mail.aol.com.875654791" Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 33 --PART.BOUNDARY.0.20636.emout16.mail.aol.com.875654791 Content-ID: <0_20636_875654791@emout16.mail.aol.com.10995> Content-type: text/plain We are pleased to announce the release of two reports on the market for organic products and the rate of farmland conversion to organic production methods. These reports are entitled: AgriSystems International 1996 World Report: Organic Production and the Global Market for Organic Products ($195.00) and AgriSystems International Reports Certified Organic Production in the United States: Half a Decade of Growth ($60.00) A description of each report, along with a table of contents and list of charts and tables for each report, is provided in the document attached. Order forms are also enclosed. If you are unable to download these documents, please send an email message to: agrisysdc@aol.com, and provide your fax number or address. You may also call (703)528-6550 or fax a note to (703)528-6551. The cost of shipping to destinations outside of the United States is not included in the prices above. If you are an university/college researcher, you may wish to take advantage of our 20% academic discount on these publications. Utilize the order form(s) attached, and enclose a cover letter on the stationary of your educational institution. Further questions may be directed to the author of both reports: Julie Anton Dunn AgriSystems International -- D.C. Office P.O. Box 7691 Arlington, VA 22207 agrisysdc@aol.com Thank you for your interest. --PART.BOUNDARY.0.20636.emout16.mail.aol.com.875654791 Content-ID: <0_20636_875654791@emout16.mail.aol.com.10996> Content-type: application/octet-stream; name="PUBPROMO.DOC" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOwADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAA AAAAEAAAAgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAD///////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////9////KgAAAP7///8rAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAA CAAAAAkAAAAKAAAACwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAATAAAAFAAAABUA AAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAAGgAAABsAAAAcAAAAHQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAA IwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAAACwAAAD+/////v///y0AAAAuAAAALwAAADAA AAAxAAAAMgAAADMAAAA0AAAANQAAADYAAAA3AAAAOAAAAP7///////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1IA bwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAWAAUA//////////8DAAAAAAkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIZy COWwzbwBAwAAAIADAAAAAAAAAQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgH///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYgAAAAAAAABXAG8AcgBkAEQAbwBjAHUA bQBlAG4AdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGgACAf// //8EAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAA7ZQAA AAAAAE8AYgBqAGUAYwB0AFAAbwBvAGwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAEBAQAAAAIAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACG/FfU sM28AYb8V9SwzbwBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAP7///8DAAAABAAAAAUAAAAGAAAABwAAAAgA AAAJAAAACgAAAAsAAAAMAAAADQAAAP7///////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////8BAP7/ AwoAAP////8ACQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGHAAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDYuMCBEb2N1bWVu dAAKAAAATVNXb3JkRG9jABAAAABXb3JkLkRvY3VtZW50LjYAAAAAADsAAwD+/wkABgAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAP7/AAADCgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAADghZ/y+U9oEKuR CAArJ7PZMAAAALACAAAOAAAABwAAAJgAAAACAAAA3AAAAAQAAAAAAQAACAAAACQBAAAMAAAA SAEAAAsAAABsAQAADQAAAJABAAAPAAAAtAEAABAAAADYAQAACgAAAPwBAAASAAAAIAIAAA4A AABEAgAACQAAAGgCAAATAAAAjAIAAP////////////////////////////////////////// HgAAACgAAABDOlxNU09GRklDRVxXSU5XT1JEXFRFTVBMQVRFXE5PUk1BTC5ET1QAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeAAAAEAAAAGEgYSBhIGEgYSBhIGEgYQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeAAAA HAAAAFRob21hcyBhbmQgTG9ycmFpbmUgSGFyZGluZwAeAAAAHAAAAFRob21hcyBhbmQgTG9y cmFpbmUgSGFyZGluZwBAAAAAholjr9ylZQAzwAkEAAAAAGUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAABQSgAA O2UAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAXgAAigAAAABeAACKAAAAil4AAAAAAACKXgAAAAAAAIpeAAAAAAAAil4AAAAAAACKXgAA FAAAABRfAAAAAAAAFF8AAAAAAAAUXwAAAAAAABRfAAAAAAAAFF8AAAAAAAAUXwAAFgAAACpf AAAoAAAAFF8AAAAAAAAzZAAAWwAAAFJfAAAAAAAAUl8AAAAAAABSXwAAAAAAAFJfAAAAAAAA Ul8AAAAAAABSXwAAAAAAAFJfAAAAAAAAUl8AAAAAAAC9XwAAAgAAAL9fAAAAAAAAv18AAAAA AAC/XwAAJgAAAOVfAAAYAgAA/WEAABgCAAAVZAAAHgAAAI5kAABUAAAA4mQAAFkAAAAzZAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKXgAAAAAAAFJfAAAAAAAAAAAmACkAAwAGAFJfAAAAAAAA Ul8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUl8AAAAAAABSXwAAAAAAADNkAAAAAAAAUl8AAAAA AACKXgAAAAAAAIpeAAAAAAAAUl8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUl8AAAAAAABSXwAA AAAAAFJfAAAAAAAAUl8AAAAAAABSXwAAAAAAAIpeAAAAAAAAUl8AAAAAAACKXgAAAAAAAFJf AAAAAAAAvV8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnl4AACwAAADKXgAASgAAAIpeAAAAAAAA il4AAAAAAACKXgAAAAAAAIpeAAAAAAAAUl8AAAAAAAC9XwAAAAAAAFJfAABrAAAAUl8AAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACggKCAoICggKCAoICggKA1PcmRl ciBZb3VyIENvcHkgVG9kYXkhDQ1BZ3JpU3lzdGVtcyBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIA0xOTk2IFdv cmxkIFJlcG9ydDoNT3JnYW5pYyBQcm9kdWN0aW9uIGFuZCB0aGUgDUdsb2JhbCBNYXJrZXQg Zm9yIE9yZ2FuaWMgUHJvZHVjdHMgDQ1TcGFubmluZyB0aGUgY29udGluZW50cyBvZiB0aGUg QW1lcmljYXMsIEV1cm9wZSwgQXNpYSwgQWZyaWNhLCBBdXN0cmFsYXNpYSwgYW5kIHRoZSBN aWRkbGUgRWFzdCB0aGlzIHJlcG9ydCBwcm92aWRlcyBhbiBpbi1kZXB0aCBsb29rIGF0IHRo ZSBsZXZlbCBvZiBvcmdhbmljIHByb2R1Y3Rpb24gYWNyb3NzIG1vcmUgdGhhbiA1MCBjb3Vu dHJpZXMgd29ybGR3aWRlLCBhbmQgdGhlIGdsb2JhbCBtYXJrZXQgZm9yIG9yZ2FuaWMgcHJv ZHVjdHMuICBFYWNoIHJlZ2lvbmFsIHByb2ZpbGUgaW5jbHVkZXMgZGVzY3JpcHRpb25zIG9m IHRoZSBkb21lc3RpYyBvcmdhbmljIGFncmljdWx0dXJlLCBwcm9jZXNzaW5nLCByZXRhaWws IGFuZCBjb25zdW1lciBzZWN0b3JzLCBhbmQgdGhlIGxldmVsIG9mIGZvcmVpZ24gb3JnYW5p YyBwcm9kdWN0IHRyYWRlLiAgIENvbnRhaW5pbmcgc3RhdGlzdGljcyBkZXRhaWxpbmcgcmF0 ZXMgb2YgZmFybWxhbmQgY29udmVyc2lvbnMgdG8gb3JnYW5pYyBwcm9kdWN0aW9uIG5vdCBm b3VuZCBpbiBhbnkgb25lIHJlcG9ydCwgQWdyaVN5c3RlbXMgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCAxOTk2 IFdvcmxkIFJlcG9ydDogT3JnYW5pYyBQcm9kdWN0aW9uIGFuZCB0aGUgR2xvYmFsIE1hcmtl dCBmb3IgT3JnYW5pYyBQcm9kdWN0cyBwcm92aWRlcyB1bmlxdWUgbWFya2V0IGluc2lnaHRz IHRvIGFueSBwcm9kdWNlciwgaGFuZGxlciwgcmV0YWlsZXIsIG9yIHJlc2VhcmNoZXIgaW1t ZXJzZWQgaW4gb3IgYXBwcm9hY2hpbmcgdGhlIHRyYWRlIHRvZGF5LiAgODkgcGFnZXMuDQ1U TyBPUkRFUiB0aGUgYWJvdmUgcHVibGljYXRpb24sIGNvbXBsZXRlIHRoZSBvcmRlciBmb3Jt IGJlbG93IGFuZCBzdWJtaXQgd2l0aCBwYXltZW50ICBieSBjaGVjayBvciBtb25leSBvcmRl ciAoaW4gVS5TLiBkb2xsYXJzKSB0bzogICBBZ3JpU3lzdGVtcyBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsLCAx MjUgV2VzdCBTZXZlbnRoIFN0cmVldCwgV2luZCBHYXAsIFBlbm5zeWx2YW5pYSAgMTgwOTEg VVNBLCB0ZWxlcGhvbmUgKDYxMCk4NjMtNjcwMCwgZmFjc2ltaWxlICg2MTApODYzLTQ2MjIg LCBFbWFpbCAtIGFncmlzeXMxQGFvbC5jb20uICBHcm91bmQgc2hpcHBpbmcgaW5jbHVkZWQg aW4gcHJpY2UgZm9yIFUuUy4gb3JkZXJzOyBleHByZXNzIHNlcnZpY2UgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0 IGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgY29zdC4gIE90aGVyIGNvdW50cmllcywgcGxlYXNlIGFkZCAkMTAuMDAg Zm9yIHN0YW5kYXJkIG1haWwgc2VydmljZSBvciBwcm92aWRlIHVzIHdpdGggeW91ciBVUFMs IEZlZGVyYWwgRXhwcmVzcywgREhMLCBvciBvdGhlciBleHByZXNzIG1haWwgYWNjb3VudCBu dW1iZXIuICBUaGFuayB5b3UhDQkJCQkJCQkJCQ1QdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBUaXRsZQkJCQkgICAg ICAgUXVhbnRpdHkgICAgICAgICBDb3N0IEVhY2ggICAgICAgIENvc3QgVG90YWwNDTE5OTYg V29ybGQgUmVwb3J0OiAgT3JnYW5pYyBQcm9kdWN0aW9uIA1hbmQgdGhlIEdsb2JhbCBNYXJr ZXQgZm9yIE9yZ2FuaWMgUHJvZHVjdHMgICAgICAgICBfX19fX19fXyAgICAgICAgICAgICQx OTUuMDAgICAgICAgICAkX19fX19fX19fDQ0JRXhwcmVzcyBNYWlsIENhcnJpZXI6ICBfX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCSAgICAgICAgICAJCVNoaXBwaW5nOiAgICAgJF9fX19fX19f Xw0JCSAgQWNjb3VudCAjOiAgX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0JCQkJCQkJICAgICAg ICAgCQlUb3RhbCAgICAgICAgICAkX19fX19fX19fICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDSANU2Vu ZCBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbihzKSB0bzoNDU5hbWU6ICAgICAgICAgIF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NVGl0bGU6CSAg ICAgICAgIF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXw1Db21wYW55OiAgICBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDUFkZHJlc3M6ICAgICAgX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f Xw0JICAgICAgICBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDUNvdW50cnk6ICAgICAgX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw1UZWxlcGhvbmU6ICAo X19fX19fKShfX19fX19fKV9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX18NRmFjc2ltaWxlOiAgIChfX19fX18pKF9fX19fX18pX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw1FbWFpbDoJICAgICAgICBfX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f Xw0MQWdyaVN5c3RlbXMgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCAxOTk2IFdvcmxkIFJlcG9ydDoNT3JnYW5p YyBQcm9kdWN0aW9uIGFuZCB0aGUgDUdsb2JhbCBNYXJrZXQgZm9yIE9yZ2FuaWMgUHJvZHVj dHMgDQ1UYWJsZSBvZiBDb250ZW50cw0NUHJlZmFjZS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLmkNQ2hhcHRlciBPbmU6ICBUaGUgRm91bmRpbmcgb2YgT3JnYW5pYyBBZ3JpY3Vs dHVyZS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjENCU1hcmtldHBsYWNlIExlZ2l0aW1hY3kgYW5kIHRoZSBSaXNl IG9mIE9yZ2FuaWMgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4yDQlMZWdpc2xhdGlvbiBvZiBPcmdhbmljIExh YmVsaW5nIFJ1bGVzIGluIHRoZSBNYXJrZXRwbGFjZS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4zDQlXaWxkZmlyZSBFZmZl Y3RzIG9mIE9yZ2FuaWMgTWFya2V0IFN1Y2Nlc3MuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u NAkNQ2hhcHRlciBUd286ICAgT3JnYW5pYyBNYXJrZXQgUm9vdHMgaW4gRXVyb3BlLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjUNCUxhcmdlc3QgTWFya2V0IGZvciBPcmdhbmljcyBGb3VuZCBpbiBH ZXJtYW55Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi44DQlFcGlkZW1pYyBvZiBGYXJtIENvbnZlcnNp b25zIGluIEF1c3RyaWEuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjEyDQlHcmVlbmVyIFBh c3R1cmVzIEFib3VuZCBpbiBTd2l0emVybGFuZCAmIERlbm1hcmsuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjE1DQlT dGltdWxhdGluZyBQYWNlIG9mIEV4cGFuc2lvbiBpbiBJdGFseSAmIFNwYWluIFN0aWx0ZWQg YnkgVW5kZXJkZXZlbG9wZWQgRGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uIFN5c3RlbXMuLi4uLi4uMTkNCVN0ZWFk ZmFzdCBHcm93dGggaW4gRnJhbmNlICYgQmVsZ2l1bS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4yMw0JVW5pdGVkIEtpbmdkb20gTW90aGVycyB0aGUgTWFpbnN0cmVhbS4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjI3DQlGb3JlaWduIFRyYWRlIEZsb3VyaXNoaW5nIGlu IFRoZSBOZXRoZXJsYW5kcy4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjI5DQlTY2FuZGluYXZpYW4g RmFybSBTZWN0b3IgU3VjY2VzcyBvZiAgRmlubGFuZCwgSWNlbGFuZCwgTm9yd2F5ICYgU3dl ZGVuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMzINCVNtYWxsIEJ1dCBJ bXBvcnRhbnQgT3JnYW5pYyBNYXJrZXQgU2VjdG9ycyBpbiBHcmVlY2UsIElyZWxhbmQsIEx1 eGVtYm91cmcsICYgUG9ydHVnYWwuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjM4DUNoYXB0ZXIgVGhyZWU6 ICBPcmdhbmljIE1hcmtldCBTdWNjZXNzIE92ZXJmbG93cyBpbiB0aGUgQW1lcmljYXMuLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uNDINCUxhcmdlIEFjcmVhZ2Ug Q29udmVyc2lvbnMgYW5kIFByb2Nlc3NpbmcgU2VjdG9yIEdyb3d0aCBEcml2ZW4gYnkgUmV0 YWlsIFN1Y2Nlc3MNCQkgaW4gdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjQyDQlDcmVhdGlvbiBvZiBhIFJhdyBTdXBwbHkg TWFya2V0IGluIENhbmFkYS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjUxDQlUcmFkaXRpb25h bCBFeHBvcnQgQ3JvcHMgTWF5IFJlc3RvcmUgRW52aXJvbm1lbnQgaW4gQ29zdGEgUmljYS4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi41Mg0JRWNv bm9taWMgQmVuZWZpdHMgb2YgT3JnYW5pY3MgUHJvbW90ZSBQZWFjZSBpbiBFbCBTYWx2YWRv ciAmIE5pY2FyYWd1YS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi41Mw0J RnJvbSBTdWJzaXN0ZW5jZSB0byBTZWxmLVN1ZmZpY2llbmN5IEFtb25nIHRoZSBJbmRpZ2Vu b3VzIGluICBHdWF0ZW1hbGEgJiBNZXhpY28uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uNTUNCUFn Z3Jlc3NpdmUgTGFuZCBDb252ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBHb3Zlcm5tZW50YWwgU3VwcG9ydCBpbiBB cmdlbnRpbmEuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjU3 DSAJU2xvdyBCdXQgU3RlYWR5IERvbWVzdGljIEludGVyZXN0IGluIEJyYXppbC4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjYwDUNoYXB0ZXIgRm91cjogIEV4Y2l0aW5nIE1hcmtldCBPcHBv cnR1bml0aWVzIEFib3VuZCBpbiBBc2lhLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi42Mg0JU3Ryb25nIFN1cHBseSBQdWxsIGZyb20gdGhlIEdy b3dpbmcgRGVtYW5kIGZvciBPcmdhbmljcyBpbiBKYXBhbi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjYzDQlBIE5ldyBDb250ZW5kZXIgZm9yIHRoZSBX b3JsZCBGb29kIFN1cHBseTogIENoaW5hLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi42Ng0JQ291bnRyaWVzIEFsaWdo dCB3aXRoIFByb2R1Y3Rpb24gUG90ZW50aWFsOiAJSW5kb25lc2lhLCBQYWtpc3RhbiwgVGhl IFBoaWxpcHBpbmVzLCANCQlTb3V0aCBLb3JlYSBhbmQgU3JpIExhbmthLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi42Ng1DaGFwdGVyIEZpdmU6ICBUaGUgRWNvbm9taWMg RGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQgUG90ZW50aWFsIG9mIE9yZ2FuaWNzIGluIEFmcmljYS4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjcwDQlTZXR0aW5nIHRoZSBFeGFtcGxlIG9mIE9wcG9ydHVu aXR5OiAgVWdhbmRhLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi43MA0JT3JnYW5pYyBTZWN0b3Ig RGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQgV2F4ZXMgYW5kIFdhbmVzIGluIEdoYW5hLCBNYXVyaXRpdXMsIFNlbmVn YWwsICYgS2VueWEuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjczDQlCbG9zc29taW5nIE9yZ2FuaWMg UG90ZW50aWFsIG9mIFRhbnphbmlhLCBNYWRhZ2FzY2FyLCBNYWxhd2ksICYgWmltYmFid2Uu Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjc0DUNoYXB0ZXIgU2l4OiAgT3JnYW5p YyBTdXBwbGllcyBhbmQgTWFya2V0cyBEb3duIFVuZGVyOiAgCUF1c3RyYWxhc2lhLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uNzgNQ2hhcHRlciBTZXZlbjogIFNjYXR0 ZXJlZCBQcm9kdWN0aW9uIGFuZCB0aGUgRGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQgb2YgT3JnYW5pYyBUcmFkZSAN CWluIHRoZSBNaWRkbGUgRWFzdC4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi44MA1DaGFwdGVyIEVpZ2h0OiAgU3RyYXRlZ2llcyBmb3Ig R2xvYmFsIE9yZ2FuaWMgTWFya2V0IEV4cGFuc2lvbi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjgxDUNvbW11bml0eS1DZW50ZXJlZCBWYWx1ZS1B ZGRlZCBQcm9kdWN0aW9uIHRoZSBLZXkgdG8gRG9tZXN0aWMgTWFya2V0IEdyb3d0aC4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLjgxDU9yZ2FuaWMgTWFya2V0IEV4cGFuc2lvbiBhcyBhIEdsb2JhbCBFbnZp cm9ubWVudGFsIENhbXBhaWduLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLjgyDUFwcGVuZGljZXMuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi44NA0MQWdy aVN5c3RlbXMgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCAxOTk2IFdvcmxkIFJlcG9ydDoNT3JnYW5pYyBQcm9k dWN0aW9uIGFuZCB0aGUgDUdsb2JhbCBNYXJrZXQgZm9yIE9yZ2FuaWMgUHJvZHVjdHMgDQ0N TGlzdCBvZiBUYWJsZXMgYW5kIENoYXJ0cw0NDVdlc3Rlcm4gRXVyb3BlOiAgT3JnYW5pYyBG YXJtcyBDZXJ0aWZpZWQgYW5kIEluIENvbnZlcnNpb24gV2VzdGVybiBFdXJvcGUuLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi42DVdlc3Rlcm4gRXVyb3BlOiAgQXJlYSBpbiBPcmdhbmlj IFByb2R1Y3Rpb24gQ2VydGlmaWVkIGFuZCBJbiBDb252ZXJzaW9uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uNw1PcmdhbmljIEZhcm1pbmcgRXhwYW5kcyBpbiBHZXJtYW55 IDE5ODUtMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4xMA1PcmdhbmljIEZhcm1pbmcgRXhwYW5kcyBp biBBdXN0cmlhIDE5ODUtMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4xMw1PcmdhbmljIEZhcm1p bmcgRXhwYW5kcyBpbiBTd2l0emVybGFuZCAxOTg0LTE5OTUuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4xNg1Pcmdh bmljIEZhcm1pbmcgRXhwYW5kcyBpbiBEZW5tYXJrIDE5ODYtMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uMTcNT3JnYW5pYyBGYXJtbGFuZCBFeHBhbmRzIGluIEl0YWx5IDE5ODUtMTk5NS4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMjANT3JnYW5pYyBGYXJtbGFuZCBFeHBhbmRzIGluIFNwYWlu IDE5ODUtMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjIxDU9yZ2FuaWMgRmFybWluZyBFeHBh bmRzIGluIEZyYW5jZSAxOTg1LTE5OTUuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4yMw1Pcmdhbmlj IEZhcm1pbmcgRXhwYW5kcyBpbiBCZWxnaXVtIDE5ODUtMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u LjI2DU9yZ2FuaWMgRmFybWxhbmQgRXhwYW5kcyBpbiBVbml0ZWQgS2luZ2RvbSAxOTg0LTE5 OTUuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4yOA1FeHBhbnNpb24gb2YgT3JnYW5pYyBGYXJtbGFuZCBpbiBUaGUgTmV0aGVybGFu ZHMgMTk4NS0xOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4zMQ1PcmdhbmljIEZhcm1pbmcgRXhwYW5kcyBpbiBGaW5sYW5kIDE5ODUtMTk5 NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMzMNT3JnYW5pYyBGYXJtaW5nIEV4cGFuZHMgaW4gTm9y d2F5IDE5ODUtMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4zNA1PcmdhbmljIEZhcm1sYW5kIEV4 cGFuZHMgaW4gU3dlZGVuIDE5ODQtMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjM2DU9yZ2FuaWMg RmFybWxhbmQgRXhwYW5kcyBpbiBHcmVlY2UgMTk4NS0xOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u LjM4DU9yZ2FuaWMgRmFybWxhbmQgRXhwYW5kcyBpbiBJcmVsYW5kIDE5ODUtMTk5NS4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4zOQ1PcmdhbmljIEZhcm1sYW5kIEV4cGFuZHMgaW4gTHV4ZW1ib3Vy ZyAxOTg1LTE5OTUuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uNDANT3JnYW5pYyBGYXJtbGFuZCBFeHBhbmRzIGluIFBv cnR1Z2FsIDE5ODUtMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uNDANVS5TLiBPcmdhbmljIFByb2R1 Y3QgU2FsZXMgMTk5MS0xOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi40 Mw1VLlMuIENlcnRpZmllZCBPcmdhbmljIEZhcm0gU2VjdG9yIEV4cGFuZHMgMTk5MS0xOTk1 Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi40NQ1VLlMuIENlcnRpZmllZCBPcmdhbmljIFBhc3R1cmUgYW5kIFJhbmdlbGFu ZCAxOTkxLTE5OTUuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjQ2DVUuUy4gQ2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2FuaWMgQWdyaWN1bHR1cmFs IExhbmQgMTk5MS0xOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjQ3DUNlcnRpZmllZCBVLlMuIEhhbmRsZXJz IDE5OTEtMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uNDgN Q2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2FuaWMgQ290dG9uIEhhcnZlc3RlZCBpbiBVZ2FuZGEgMTk5My0xOTk2 Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLjcxDU9yZ2FuaWMgRmFybXMgQ2VydGlmaWVkIGluIFVnYW5kYSAxOTkzLTE5OTYuLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjcyDU9yZ2FuaWMgRmFybWxhbmQgQ2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2Fu aWMgaW4gVWdhbmRhIDE5OTMtMTk5Ni4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjcyDQ0NTm90ZTogIAlPdGhlciBzdGF0aXN0aWNz IG9uIEFmcmljYSwgYW5kIHN0YXRpc3RpY3Mgb24gTGF0aW4gQW1lcmljYSBhbmQgQXNpYSBh cmUgbm90IGNoYXJ0ZWQgYnV0IA0JYXJlIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIHRoZSBSZXBvcnQuDQ0NDQ0N DQ0MKCAoICggKCAoICggKCAoDU5PVyBBVkFJTEFCTEUhICBPcmRlciBZb3VyIENvcHkgVG9k YXkhDQ1BZ3JpU3lzdGVtcyBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIFJlcG9ydHMNQ2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2Fu aWMgUHJvZHVjdGlvbiANaW4gdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXM6DUhhbGYgYSBEZWNhZGUgb2Yg R3Jvd3RoDQ1Gb3IgY29tcGFuaWVzIGluIHRoZSBvcmdhbmljIHRyYWRlLCBpbnZlc3RvcnMs IHJlc2VhcmNoZXJzLCBwb2xpY3ktbWFrZXJzLCBhbmQgb3RoZXJzIGNvbmNlcm5lZCB3aXRo IHRoZSBzdGF0ZSBvZiB0aGUgVS5TLiBtYXJrZXQgZm9yIGNlcnRpZmllZCBvcmdhbmljIGdv b2RzLiAgVGhpcyBzdGF0aXN0aWNhbCBwaWVjZSBkZXNjcmliZXMgYSBkb3VibGluZyBpbiBj ZXJ0aWZpZWQgYWNyZWFnZSBmcm9tIDE5OTEgdG8gMTk5NSBpbiBhbiBleHBsYW5hdGlvbiBv ZiBleHBhbmRpbmcgb3JnYW5pYyBwcm9kdWN0aW9uIGxhbmQgYW5kIGxpdmVzdG9jayBhcyBh IGZyYWN0aW9uIG9mIG92ZXJhbGwgVS5TLiBmYXJtbGFuZC4gIEl0IGFsc28gcHJvdmlkZXMg YWNyZWFnZXMgYnkgcHJpbWFyeSBjb21tb2RpdHkgY2F0ZWdvcmllcywgc3VjaCBhcyBzb3li ZWFucyBhbmQgd2hlYXQsIGZvciB0aGUgeWVhciAxOTk1LiAgRnVydGhlciwgaXQgaWRlbnRp ZmllcyBtYWpvciBvcmdhbmljIGNyb3BzIG9mIHRvcCBwcm9kdWNpbmcgc3RhdGVzIGluIDE5 OTUuICBOdW1iZXJzIG9mIGxpdmVzdG9jayBieSB0eXBlIGFyZSBnaXZlbiBmb3IgeWVhcnMg MTk5Mi0xOTk0LiAgU2FsZXMgb2Ygb3JnYW5pYyBwcm9kdWN0cyBieSBjYXRlZ29yeSBhbmQg b3ZlcmFsbCBvcmdhbmljIGluZHVzdHJ5IGdyb3d0aCBhcmUgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHdpdGhpbi4g IENvbnRhaW5pbmcgdGhlIG9ubHkga25vd24gc3RhdGlzdGljcyBvbiBjZXJ0aWZpZWQgb3Jn YW5pYyBwcm9kdWN0aW9uIGJ5IGNyb3AgYW5kIHN0YXRlLCBBZ3JpU3lzdGVtcyBJbnRlcm5h dGlvbmFsIFJlcG9ydHMgQ2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2FuaWMgUHJvZHVjdGlvbiBpbiB0aGUgVW5p dGVkIFN0YXRlczogIEhhbGYgYSBEZWNhZGUgb2YgR3Jvd3RoIHByb3ZpZGVzIHVuaXF1ZSBh bmQgZXNzZW50aWFsIG1hcmtldCBpbnNpZ2h0cyB0byBhbnkgcHJvZHVjZXIsIGhhbmRsZXIs IHJldGFpbGVyLCBvciByZXNlYXJjaGVyIGltbWVyc2VkIGluIG9yIGFwcHJvYWNoaW5nIHRo ZSBkb21lc3RpYyBvcmdhbmljIHByb2R1Y3QgdHJhZGUgdG9kYXkuICBQdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBD b2RlIEFTSTIwOiAgJDYwLjAwLiAgMzMgcGFnZXMuDQ1UTyBPUkRFUiB0aGUgYWJvdmUgcHVi bGljYXRpb24sIGNvbXBsZXRlIHRoZSBvcmRlciBmb3JtIGJlbG93IGFuZCBzdWJtaXQgd2l0 aCBwYXltZW50ICBieSBjaGVjayBvciBtb25leSBvcmRlciAoaW4gVS5TLiBkb2xsYXJzKSB0 bzogICBBZ3JpU3lzdGVtcyBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsLCAxMjUgV2VzdCBTZXZlbnRoIFN0cmVl dCwgV2luZCBHYXAsIFBlbm5zeWx2YW5pYSAgMTgwOTEgVVNBLCB0ZWxlcGhvbmUgKDYxMCk4 NjMtNjcwMCwgZmFjc2ltaWxlICg2MTApODYzLTQ2MjIgLCBFbWFpbCAtIGFncmlzeXMxQGFv bC5jb20uICBHcm91bmQgc2hpcHBpbmcgaW5jbHVkZWQgaW4gcHJpY2UgZm9yIFUuUy4gb3Jk ZXJzOyBleHByZXNzIHNlcnZpY2UgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgY29zdC4gIE90 aGVyIGNvdW50cmllcywgcGxlYXNlIGFkZCAkMTAuMDAgZm9yIHN0YW5kYXJkIG1haWwgc2Vy dmljZSBvciBwcm92aWRlIHVzIHdpdGggeW91ciBVUFMsIEZlZGVyYWwgRXhwcmVzcywgREhM LCBvciBvdGhlciBleHByZXNzIG1haWwgYWNjb3VudCBudW1iZXIuICBUaGFuayB5b3UhDQkJ CQkJCQkJDVB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIFRpdGxlCQkJCSAgICAgICBRdWFudGl0eSAgICAgICAgIENv c3QgRWFjaCAgICAgICAgQ29zdCBUb3RhbA0NQWdyaVN5c3RlbXMgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBS ZXBvcnRzIENlcnRpZmllZA1PcmdhbmljIFByb2R1Y3Rpb24gaW4gdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0 ZXM6DUhhbGYgYSBEZWNhZGUgb2YgR3Jvd3RoCQkJICAgICAgICAgX19fX19fX18gICAgICAg ICAgICQgIDYwLjAwICAgICAgICAgJF9fX19fX19fXwkJDQkJRXhwcmVzcyBNYWlsIENhcnJp ZXI6ICBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXyAgICAgICAgIAkJU2hpcHBpbmc6ICAgICAkX19f X19fX19fDQkJICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEFjY291bnQgIzogIF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f XwkJVG90YWwgICAgICAgICAgJF9fX19fX19fXyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0NU2VuZCBw dWJsaWNhdGlvbihzKSB0bzoNDU5hbWU6ICAgICAgICAgIF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX18gIFRpdGxlOiAgX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NQ29t cGFueTogICAgX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDUFkZHJlc3M6ICAgICAgX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQkgICAg ICAgIF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18gIENvdW50cnk6IF9fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDVRlbGVwaG9uZTogKF9fX18pKF9fX19fKV9fX19fX19fX19f X19fX18gIEZhY3NpbWlsZTogICAoX19fXykoX19fXylfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NRW1h aWw6CSAgICAgICAgX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0MQWdyaVN5c3RlbXMgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBSZXBv cnRzDUNlcnRpZmllZCBPcmdhbmljIFByb2R1Y3Rpb24gaW4gdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXM6 DUhhbGYgYSBEZWNhZGUgb2YgR3Jvd3RoDQ1UYWJsZSBvZiBDb250ZW50cw0NSW50cm9kdWN0 aW9uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLjENDVUuUy4gTmF0dXJhbCBQcm9kdWN0IFJldGFpbCBTZWN0b3IgRHJpdmVzIE9yZ2Fu aWMgU3VwcGx5Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjINDU5hdHVyYWwg Rm9vZCBTdXBlcm1hcmtldHM6IEVuZ2luZXMgb2YgRXhwYW5zaW9uIGluIE9yZ2FuaWNzLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4zDQ1Qcml2YXRlIFN0b3JlIEJyYW5kcyBvZiBPcmdh bmljIFByb2R1Y3RzIG9uIHRoZSBSaXNlLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uNg0NT3JnYW5pYyBGYXJtIFNlY3RvciBGZWVkcyBSZXRhaWxlcnMuLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi43DQ1VLlMuIEFncmljdWx0dXJhbCBMYW5kIENlcnRpZmllZCBBY3Jvc3Mg Q2F0ZWdvcmllcy4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li44DQ1VLlMuIEZhcm1lcnMgUmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byBNYXJrZXQgR3Jvd3RoLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4yMA0NVGhl IE9yZ2FuaWMgRm9vZHMgUHJvZHVjdGlvbiBBY3QgUmVtYWlucyBhIFNrZWxldG9uIG9mIFN0 YW5kYXJkcy4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4yMg0NTGFiZWxpbmcgUnVsZXMgSGF1bnQgVS5TLiBP cmdhbmljIE1lYXQgU2VjdG9yLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjIzDQ1PcmdhbmljIEVnZ3MgYW5kIERhaXJ5IEdvIHRvIE1hcmtldC4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uMjQNDU9yZ2FuaWMgUHJvZHVjdCBNYW51ZmFjdHVyaW5nIFNlY3RvciBDYXRl cnMgdG8gdGhlIJNOYXR1cmFslCBDb25zdW1lci4uLi4uLjI1DQ1VLlMuIE9yZ2FuaWMgUHJv ZHVjdCBUcmFkZSBIYW1wZXJlZCBieSBSZWd1bGF0b3J5IERlbGF5cy4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4yNw0NT3JnYW5pYyBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBDb25zdW1lciBD b25maWRlbmNlLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLjI4DQ1Db25zdW1lcnMgRmluZCBOZXcgU291cmNlcyBvZiBPcmdhbmljIEZvb2RzLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4yOQ0NQ29u Y2x1c2lvbjogIFNldHRpbmcgU2l0ZXMgb24gR2xvYmFsIExlYWRlcnNoaXAgaW4gdGhlIA0J RW52aXJvbm1lbnRhbCBDb21tdW5pdHkuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjMwDQ1SZWZlcmVu Y2VzLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4zMg0NQWdyaVN5c3RlbXMgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbCBDb21wYW55IFByb2ZpbGUuLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4sLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjMz DQxBZ3JpU3lzdGVtcyBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIFJlcG9ydHMNQ2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2FuaWMg UHJvZHVjdGlvbiBpbiB0aGUgVW5pdGVkIFN0YXRlczoNSGFsZiBhIERlY2FkZSBvZiBHcm93 dGgNDUxpc3Qgb2YgVGFibGVzIGFuZCBDaGFydHMNDQ1VLlMuIE9yZ2FuaWMgUHJvZHVjdCBT YWxlcyBUaHJvdWdoIERpc3RyaWJ1dG9ycyAxOTkxLTE5OTYuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4zDVUuUy4gQ2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2FuaWMgQWdyaWN1bHR1 cmFsIExhbmQgMTk5MS0xOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjgNMTk5NSBDZXJ0aWZpZWQgT3JnYW5pYyBBY3JlYWdlIFtjcm9w IHN1YmNhdGVnb3JpemF0aW9uXS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLjkNUGVyY2VudGFnZSBvZiAxOTk1IENlcnRpZmllZCBPcmdhbmljIEFjcmVh Z2UgYnkgTWFqb3IgQWdyaWN1bHR1cmFsIENhdGVnb3J5Li4uLi4uLi4uMTANQ2VydGlmaWVk IE9yZ2FuaWMgQWdyaWN1bHR1cmFsIExhbmQgYnkgU3RhdGUgMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjExDVRvcCBVLlMuIFN0 YXRlcyBpbiBDZXJ0aWZpZWQgT3JnYW5pYyBBZ3JpY3VsdHVyYWwgTGFuZCAxOTk1Li4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4xMQ1DZXJ0aWZpZWQgT3JnYW5pYyBD cm9wbGFuZCBieSBTdGF0ZSAxOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4xMg1Ub3AgMTAgVS5TLiBTdGF0 ZXMgaW4gQ2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2FuaWMgQ3JvcGxhbmQgMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMTMNUGVyY2VudGFnZSBvZiAxOTk1IEFj cmVhZ2UgaW4gR3JhaW4gUHJvZHVjdGlvbiBieSBNYWpvciBUeXBlLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4xMw1DZXJ0aWZpZWQgT3JnYW5pYyBHcmFpbiBDcm9wbGFuZCBi eSBTdGF0ZSAxOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjE0DUNlcnRpZmllZCBPcmdhbmljIEdyYWluIENyb3BzIGJ5IFRv cCBQcm9kdWNpbmcgU3RhdGVzIDE5OTU6IAlXaGVhdC4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4xNQ0JCQkJ CQkJCSAgICAgIAlPYXRzLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjE1CQ0JCQkJCQkJCQlNaWxsZXQu Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjE1DQkJCQkJCQkJCVJ5ZS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMTYN CQkJCQkJCQkJQmFybGV5Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjE2DQkJCQkJCQkJCUNvcm4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMTYNCQkJCQkJCQkJUmljZS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMTYNCQkJ CQkJCQkJU3BlbHQuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMTYNQ2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2FuaWMgUHJv ZHVjZSBDcm9wbGFuZCBieSBTdGF0ZSAxOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMTcNUGVyY2VudGFnZSBvZiAxOTk1IEFjcmVh Z2UgaW4gQ2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2FuaWMgUHVsc2UgUHJvZHVjdGlvbiANCWJ5IE1ham9yIFR5 cGUuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4xNw1DZXJ0 aWZpZWQgT3JnYW5pYyBQdWxzZSBDcm9wbGFuZCBieSBTdGF0ZSAxOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjE4DUNlcnRp ZmllZCBPcmdhbmljIFNveWJlYW4gQ3JvcGxhbmQgYnkgU3RhdGUgMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMTgNQ2VydGlmaWVk IE9yZ2FuaWMgQ290dG9uIENyb3BsYW5kIGJ5IFN0YXRlIDE5OTUuLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjE5DUNlcnRpZmllZCBP cmdhbmljIE9pbHNlZWQgQ3JvcGxhbmQgYnkgU3RhdGUgMTk5NS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4xOQ1DZXJ0aWZpZWQgT3Jn YW5pYyBTdW5mbG93ZXIgU2VlZCBDcm9wbGFuZCBieSBTdGF0ZSAxOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMjANVS5TLiBPcmdhbmljIEZhcm0gU2Vj dG9yIEV4cGFuZHMgMTk5MS0xOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjIxDUxpdmVzdG9jayBSYWlzZWQgVW5kZXIg Q2VydGlmaWVkIE9yZ2FuaWMgTWV0aG9kcy4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMjMNVS5TLiBDZXJ0aWZpZWQgT3JnYW5pYyBQYXN0 dXJlIGFuZCBSYW5nZWxhbmQgMTk5MS0xOTk1Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4yNA1DZXJ0aWZpZWQgVS5TLiBIYW5kbGVycyAxOTkxLTE5OTUu Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLjI2DTE5OTYgU2FsZXMgb2YgT3JnYW5pYyBQcm9k dWN0cyBieSBDYXRlZ29yeS4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uMjYNDQ0NDQ0NDQ0MAKagBaegBahAAqlAAtDP EeChsRrhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADsAAwD+/wkABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAA ABAAAAIAAAABAAAA/v///wAAAAAAAAAA//////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////8FAFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkA SQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAACAP// /////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAADgAgAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAALDNvAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAholjr7DNvAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAeAAAAEwAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDYuMAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAeAAAAAgAAADIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADQzxHgobEa4QAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAA7AAMA/v8JAP////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////AAMAAAEDAAACAwAAAwMAAAQD AAAFAwAABgMAAAcDAAAIAwAACQMAAAoDAAALAwAADAMAAA0DAAAOAwAADwMAABADAAAnAwAA KAMAAJQDAACWAwAAlwMAALQFAAAeBgAAqAYAAKkGAAAtBwAAMAcAAEkHAADZCAAA4wgAAPQI AAD/CAAABwkAABAJAAAZCQAAIQkAACsJAAAtCQAAfwkAALgJAAABCgAAEAoAADMKAABVCgAA cAoAAHEKAABzCgAAiQoAAIsKAACMCgAANg0AADcNAACkDQAApQ0AALcNAAC4DQAAwQ4AAP0O AAA3DwAAbw8AAK8PAADZDwAApBAAANAQAAAdEQAARBEAAJgRAADIEQAADRIAAGoSAAB1EgAA mRIAAPr3+vf69/r3+vf69/r3+vfy7+vo5OLf4tvW08/W4szKzMrMyszKx8UAxQDFwsUAzMrA yr3rurfFygDKAMoAygDKAMoAygDKAAAABVWBYygABVWBYxgABVWBYzQAA2McAAVeA2MWAANj FgAFVYFjFgADYxgABV4BYxgAB1WBVoFjFgAFVYFjEgAIVYFdBABjEgAABl0EAGMWAAAFVoFj GAADXQQABl0EAGMcAAAFVoFjLAAHVYFWgWMsAAVVgWMsAAhWgV0CAGMsAAAFVYFjYAAKSgMD AGFVgWNgAEiZEgAA8hIAABcTAABsEwAAmBMAAOcTAAAtFAAAVRQAAKoUAAAoFQAAKRUAACoV AACRFQAA9xUAACAWAAByFgAAsBYAAOQWAAArFwAAVBcAAKQXAAC+FwAA/hcAAC8YAABaGAAA HBkAAFwZAACNGQAAvhkAAAMaAAByGgAANhsAADcbAABiGwAAsxsAAAMcAAAbHAAAYxwAAIkf AACKHwAAix8AAPgfAAD6HwAAFCAAAIgsAACJLAAAiiwAAI4sAACSLAAACS0AABEtAAASLQAA Ey0AABQtAAAVLQAAFi0AABctAAAYLQAAGS0AABotAAAbLQAAHC0AAB0tAAAeLQAAHy0AACAt AAAhLQAASC0AAEktAAC2LQAAty0AALgtAADHMAAANDEAAAcyAAD9AP0A/QD9AP37/QD9AP0A /QD9AP0A/QD9AP0A/QD9+wD9AP0A/fv38/fw/e3q5uPf99nW2dbZ1tnW2dbZ1tnW2dbRzsrI xMK/wgAAAAAAAAAABVaBYxgAA10EAAZdBABjGAAAA2MwAAdVgVaBYzAABVWBYywACFaBXQIA YyQAAAVVgWNgAApKAwMAYVWBY2AAAAdVgVaBYxgABVWBYxgAB1WBXgFjGAAFXgFjFgAFXgFj GAAFVYFjKAAHVYFWgWMsAAZdBABjFgAAA2McAANjGAAASgcyAAAIMgAAjDIAAI8yAACoMgAA ODQAAEE0AABSNAAAXTQAAGU0AABuNAAAdzQAAH80AACJNAAAijQAAPo0AAAxNQAAejUAAI41 AACgNQAAxzUAAOI1AADjNQAA+jUAAPw1AAD9NQAA5zcAAOg3AABUOAAAVTgAAFY4AABnOAAA aDgAAOI4AADjOAAAPzkAAEA5AACXOQAAmDkAAOk5AAD6OQAAUzoAAGQ6AAC2OgAAyDoAABs7 AAArOwAAcDsAAH87AADROwAA4TsAADg8AABJPAAAljwAAJg8AADuPAAA8DwAAFA9AABSPQAA sT0AALM9AABPPgAAUT4AAMs+AADOPgAAMD8AADQ/AACgPwAAoT8AAKI/AAC8PwAAvj8AAE9K AABQSgAAXkoAAPv28+/27ero6ujq6Oro5eMA4wDj4OPq6N7o3NjW09DMyd7J3sneyd7J3sne yd7J3sneyd7J3sneyd7J3sneyd7J3tjW3tDe6ADHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AnUBAAVWgWMcAAdVgVaBYxwABVWBYygABVWBYxgAA2MsAAdVgVaBYywAA2MoAANjHAAFXgNj FgADYxYABVWBYxYAA2MYAAVeAWMYAANdBAAHVYFWgWMWAAVVgWMSAAhVgV0EAGMSAAAIVYFd BABjFgBKAAMAABADAAAnAwAAKAMAAEMDAABWAwAAcgMAAJYDAACXAwAAqAYAAKkGAADZCAAA 4wgAACwJAAAtCQAAVQkAALcJAAC4CQAADAoAADMKAABxCgAAcwoAAIsKAACMCgAA2QoAACYL AABwCwAAvAsAAAMMAABPDAAAmwwAAOgMAAA2DQAAZA0AAIANAACkDQAApQ0AALcNAAC4DQAA 9wAAAAAAAPcAAZAkEAL3AAGQJBAC9wABkCQQAvcAAZAkEAL3AAGQJBAC9wABkCQQAu4AAAAA AADuBP+QJPII7gABkCQPAeYE/5AkZAXmAAGQJPUA5gABkCQgAeYAAZAkIAHmAAGQJAgB5gAB kCQIAeYAAZAkCAHmAAGQJAgB5gABkCTwAOYAAZAkCAHuAAAAAAAA7gABkCQgAe4AAZAkUAHu AAGQJCAB7gABkCQgAe4AAZAkIAHuAAGQJCAB7gABkCQgAeYAAZAkIAHuAAGQJCAB7gABkCQg Ae4AAZAk2QHdAAAAAAAA3QABkCQQAt0AAZAkEALdAAGQJCAB3QABkCTgAdQAAZAkCAEAAAgA AAUDJho4Jxo4KBo4KRo4AAgAAAUBJho4Jxo4KBo4KRo4AAcAACYaKCcaKCgaKCkaKAAIAAAF AyYaKCcaKCgaKCkaKAAIAAAFASYaKCcaKCgaKCkaKCa4DQAASw4AAMAOAAA2DwAArg8AACsQ AACjEAAAHBEAAJcRAAAMEgAAdBIAAPESAABrEwAA5hMAAFQUAAC+FAAAKRUAAHoVAAD2FQAA cRYAAOQWAABTFwAAvRcAAC0YAACrGAAAGxkAAIwZAAACGgAAVxoAAM4aAAA2GwAAshsAABoc AACGHAAA8RwAADwdAAC/HQAAMB4AAI0eAAD5HgAAih8AALgfAAD3AAGQJCAB9wABkCQgAfcA AZAkIAH3AAGQJCAB9wABkCQgAfcAAZAkIAH3AAGQJCAB9wABkCQgAfcAAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB 9wABkCQgAfcAAZAkIAH3AAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAH3AAGQJCAB7wABkCTwAO8AAZAk IAH3AAGQJCAB9wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB9wABkCQgAfcAAZAkIAH3AAGQJCAB9wAB kCQgAfcAAZAkIAHvAAGQJPAA7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHv AAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJAIC5gAAAAAA AAAAAAAACAAABQEmGjgnGjgoGjgpGjgABwAAJho4Jxo4KBo4KRo4AAgAAAUDJho4Jxo4KBo4 KRo4KbgfAADUHwAA+B8AAPkfAAD6HwAAFCAAABUgAAAWIAAAfCAAAOYgAABbIQAA0yEAAEgi AAC+IgAAOSMAALIjAAArJAAAoiQAABIlAACBJQAA+iUAAHEmAADoJgAAYCcAANknAABMKAAA xCgAAEQpAAC5KQAALSoAAKUqAAAoKwAAmysAABYsAACILAAAiSwAAIosAADsLAAACS0AAPcA AZAkEAL3AAGQJBAC9wABkCQPAfcAAZAkDwH3AAGQJOAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB 7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB4wABkCQgAeMAAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAk IAHvAAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB7wAB kCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAdYAAZAkIAHv AAGQJCAB7wABkCQgAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCAB7wABkCQIAe8AAZAkIAHvAAGQJCABAAAAAAAA DAAALAEmGjgnGjgoGjgpGjgPBQABAAAAAAALAAAmGjgnGjgoGjgpGjgPBQABQhgAAAAHAAAm GjgnGjgoGjgpGjgACAAABQEmGjgnGjgoGjgpGjgmCS0AAAotAAALLQAADC0AAA0tAAAOLQAA Dy0AABAtAAAhLQAASC0AAEktAABrLQAAiS0AAJ8tAAC3LQAAuC0AAAcyAAAIMgAAODQAAEE0 AACKNAAAizQAALc0AADgNAAANDUAAIU1AADjNQAA5DUAAPw1AAD9NQAAUzYAAKI2AADzNgAA QTcAAJc3AADnNwAACjgAAD04AABVOAAAVjgAAGg4AABpOAAA+AABkCQPAfgAAZAkDwH4AAGQ JA8B+AABkCQPAfgAAZAkDwH4AAGQJA8B+AABkCTxAe8AAAAAAADvAAGQJLAB7wABkCQQAu8A AZAkQALvAAGQJEAC7wABkCRAAu8AAZAkQALmAAGQJCUB5gT/kCTQC+YAAZAkDwH4BP+QJGQF +AABkCT1APgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJAgB+AABkCQIAfgAAZAkCAH4AAGQJAgB+AABkCQIAfgAAZAk CAHmAAGQJCAB5gABkCQgAeYAAZAkUAHmAAGQJCAB5gABkCQgAeYAAZAkIAHmAAGQJCAB5gAB kCQgAeYAAZAkAgLvAAAAAAAA7wABkCQQAu8AAZAkEALvAAGQJCAB7wABkCTgAfgAAZAkUAEA AAAAAAgAAAUDJho4Jxo4KBo4KRo4AAgAAAUBJho4Jxo4KBo4KRo4AAcAACYaOCcaOCgaOCka OClpOAAA5DgAAOU4AABBOQAAQjkAAJk5AACaOQAA+jkAAPs5AABlOgAAZjoAAMg6AADJOgAA LDsAAC07AACAOwAAgTsAAOI7AADjOwAASjwAAEs8AACZPAAAmjwAAPE8AADyPAAAUz0AAFQ9 AAC0PQAAtT0AAO09AABSPgAAUz4AAM4+AADPPgAAMz8AAFY/AACJPwAAoT8AAKI/AAC8PwAA vT8AAL4/AAAgQAAAiEAAAPgAAZAkUAH4AAGQJFAB+AABkCRQAfgAAZAkUAH4AAGQJFAB+AAB kCRQAfgAAZAkUAH4AAGQJFAB+AABkCRQAfgAAZAkUAH4AAGQJFAB+AABkCRQAfgAAZAkUAH4 AAGQJFAB+AABkCRQAfgAAZAkUAH4AAGQJFAB+AABkCRQAfgAAZAkUAH4AAGQJFAB+AABkCRQ AfgAAZAkUAH4AAGQJFAB+AABkCRQAfgAAZAkUAH4AAGQJFAB+AABkCRQAfgAAZAkUAH4AAGQ JFAB+AABkCRQAfgAAZAkUAH4AAGQJFAB+AABkCRQAfgAAZAkMgLvAAAAAAAA7wABkCQQAu8A AZAkEALvAAGQJFAB7wABkCTgAfgAAAAAAAD4AAGQJFAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAEACAAABQEm GjgnGjgoGjgpGjgABwAAJho4Jxo4KBo4KRo4K4hAAADuQAAARUEAAK9BAAATQgAAgkIAAOlC AABIQwAAs0MAAAhEAAAyRAAAVUQAAHhEAACaRAAAvUQAAOFEAAAFRQAAbkUAALBFAAAkRgAA j0YAAPdGAABhRwAAy0cAAC9IAACZSAAAAUkAAGZJAADaSQAASEoAAElKAABKSgAAS0oAAExK AABNSgAATkoAAE9KAABQSgAA+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJCAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4 AAGQJCAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJCAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJCAB+AABkCQg AfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJCAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJCAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQ JCAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJCAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJCAB+AABkCQgAfgA AZAkIAH4AAGQJCAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJCAB+AABkCQgAfgAAZAkIAH4AAGQJAIC 9gABkCTwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAHAAAmGjgnGjgoGjgpGjgl DgAQAAgAAQBLAA8AAAAAABoAAEDx/wIAGgAGTm9ybWFsAAIAAAADAGEJBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAiAEFA8v+hACIAFkRlZmF1bHQgUGFyYWdyYXBoIEZvbnQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4A QmABAPIAHgAJQm9keSBUZXh0AAAFAA8AFngAAAAAAAAAAFBHAAAEAFBKAAAGAP////8HAAQh //8BAAAh//8CAAQh//8DAAAh//8EAAQh//8FAAAh//8GAAQh//8HAAAAAAA3CgAAixwAABEq AADoNAAANDwAAE9HAABQRwAAAAAtAAAAAQAtAAAAAgAQAAAAAwAiAAAABAAiAAAABQABAAAA BgAAAAAAAAMAAJkSAAAHMgAAXkoAACYAJwAoAAADAAC4DQAAuB8AAAktAABpOAAAiEAAAFBK AAApACoAKwAsAC0ALgBrABtUaG9tYXMgYW5kIExvcnJhaW5lIEhhcmRpbmcgQzpcTVNPRkZJ Q0VcV0lOV09SRFxQVUJQUk9NTy5ET0MbVGhvbWFzIGFuZCBMb3JyYWluZSBIYXJkaW5nD0I6 XFBVQlBST01PLkRPQ/9ASFAgTGFzZXJKZXQgNVAvNU1QIChIUCkATFBUMToASFBQQ0w1RwBI UCBMYXNlckpldCA1UC81TVAgKEhQKQAAAAAAAAAAAAoDFwCUAIQBAwcAAAEAAQD2BPgCAAAB AAcA/P8AAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgBYAgAAAgAAAP8AAAAm AAE2BAAAAgCHAAADAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAI/J05kHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAAEAAQABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQBAAAQABgAHAPgC9gQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAWAICAAD8/0hQIExh c2VySmV0IDVQLzVNUCAoSFApAAAAAAAAAAAACgMXAJQAhAEDBwAAAQABAPYE+AIAAAEABwD8 /wAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAFgCAAACAAAA/wAAACYAATYE AAACAIcAAAMABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAACAAAAj8nTmQcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAQABAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAEAABAAGAAcA+AL2BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQBYAgIAAPz/A4ABAOAxAADg MQAACgAAgAAA4DEAAAAAAADgMQAAWwAVFpABAABUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4ADBaQAQIAU3lt Ym9sAAsmkAEAAEFyaWFsABQGkAECAE1vbm90eXBlIFNvcnRzABQmkAEAAENlbnR1cnkgR290 aGljACIABAABCIgYAADQAgAAaAEAAAAAtvMZRrbzGUYAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAEAIMQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkA1kAAAAPYSBhIGEgYSBhIGEgYSBh AAAAG1Rob21hcyBhbmQgTG9ycmFpbmUgSGFyZGluZxtUaG9tYXMgYW5kIExvcnJhaW5lIEhh cmRpbmcAAAAAAAAAAAAA0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOwADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAA AAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAD///////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////8= --PART.BOUNDARY.0.20636.emout16.mail.aol.com.875654791-- From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Sep 30 20:35:27 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA13406; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:35:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA24260; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id TAA17336 for sanet-real; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pearl.mhtc.net (pearl.mhtc.net [208.135.157.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id TAA17333 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:06:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hh1122191.direcpc.com (plat-cas2-cs-20.dial.mhtc.net [156.46.19.201]) by pearl.mhtc.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/FNG) with ESMTP id SAA12460; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:03:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199709302303.SAA12460@pearl.mhtc.net> From: "D.B.Sullivan" To: "Marian Buckner" , Subject: Farming at Risk - References -attachments Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:59:37 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BCCDCA.9DD681E0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 34 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01BCCDCA.9DD681E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is Course outline from 3 Universities that can give background info for your research DBS They were posted on : COURSE POST SAEd-Share-L ------=_NextPart_000_01BCCDCA.9DD681E0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (LISTPROC2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.15]) by pearl.mhtc.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/FNG) with SMTP id UAA10856 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 20:59:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA24841; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 21:32:17 -0400 Received: from postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (POSTOFFICE.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.7]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA24536 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 21:29:47 -0400 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA29447; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 21:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.236.236.38] (CU-DIALUP-1618.CIT.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.236.38]) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA29382; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 21:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 21:48:31 +0000 Reply-To: SAED-SHARE-L@cornell.edu Sender: owner-SAED-SHARE-L@cornell.edu Precedence: bulk From: ng13@cornell.edu (Nancy Grudens Schuck) To: SAEd-Share-L@cornell.edu Cc: tal2@cornell.edu (Thomas A Lyson) Subject: COURSE POST SAED: Tom Lyson, Sustainable Agriculture and Development, Cornell Univ., U.S.A. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: ng13@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu X-PH: V4.1@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN X-UIDL: 20b56b2ed296c37a5cf5af86d33dc1cd +>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+ COURSE POST SAEd-Share-L This post contains a syllabus of a course in the broad category of agricultural and food system sustainable development. This syllabus is an updated version from first posting October 1995. SAEd-Share-L welcomes additional contributions of similar courses at any type of higher educational setting to share with other educators. Regards, Nancy Grudens-Schuck, list manager, SAEd-Share-L +>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+ Educator: Dr. Tom Lyson Course Title: Sustainable Agriculture and Development Level: Mainly graduate with some undergraduate Institution: Department of Rural Sociology, Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 14853, U.S.A; E-mail: tal2@cornell.edu Language: English First posting: October 1995 Date of Update: September 1997 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT Fall 1997 Overview: This seminar focuses on the social, economic and political foundations of sustainable agriculture and the linkages of agriculture to development. The course deals with issues of sustainability and development in both advanced industrial countries and in Third World countries. The term sustainable agriculture has many synonyms, including alternative agriculture, low-input agriculture, organic farming, regenerative agriculture, bio-dynamic farming, ecological agriculture, and the like. In its broadest form, sustainable agriculture implies a concern with the economic, environmental, and social/community aspects of farming within a local/regional context. 'Conventional' or 'mainstream' agriculture, on the other hand, gives primacy to the economics and profitability of farming within a national and global context. The course begins with an historical overview of sustainable agriculture (The Holy Earth) in week 2 and then turns to an in- depth examination of the theoretical roots of the conventional agriculture paradigm in week 3. The guiding question for week 3 is "How and why did the assumptions embedded in neoclassical economics emerge as the orienting framework for 'modern' agriculture in the U.S. and in the Third World?" The emergence of an 'alternative' or sustainable paradigm during the last 10 years is the focus of the next section of the course. Various critiques of the conventional paradigm are examined and the dimensions of the newly forming paradigm will be discussed (week 4). Indigenous knowledge and farmer-to-farmer transfers of skills and practices (Farmer First) is the focus of week 5. Beth Barham will lead a discussion of sustainable agriculture as a social movement in week 6. She will specifically focus on the work of Karl Polanyi. Week 7 is spent examining the Goldschmidt Hypothesis. Nearly 50 years ago Walter Goldschmidt, an anthropologist working in the Central Valley of California, proposed that the quality of life and level of living of rural residents was directly tied to the organizational basis of farming. Since his report was published, there have been over 40 replications. His conclusions raise questions about the relationship between civic welfare and economic organization that extend beyond farming. Week 8 thru 11 deal with a variety of topics that are related to the nexus between sustainable agriculture and development. These include biotechnology and sustainable agriculture (Chicken Little, Tomato Sauce and Agriculture: Who Will Produce Tomorrow's Food?) (week 8) and local and global perspectives on sustainable agriculture and development (weeks 9, 10 and 11). Week 12 is devoted to understanding the food system from a sustainable perspective (From Land to Mouth). Following this, we will turn to an examination of the policy options that can lead to a more sustainable agriculture (week 13). Readings: The following books have been ordered and are available at the Cornell University Bookstore. All are in paperback. Bailey, Liberty Hyde. 1915. The Holy Earth. Ithaca: New York State College of Agriculture. Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp. 1989. Farmer First. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. The Ecologist, Vol. 26, No. 6/December 1996. Food Insecurity: Who Gets to Eat? Gussow, Joan Dye. 1991. Chicken Little, Tomato Sauce and Agriculture: Who Will Produce Tomorrow's Food? New York: Bootstrap Press. Kneen, Brewster. 1993. From Land to Mouth. Toronto: NC Press Limited. In addition, all of the required readings have been reproduced and are available at K.C. Copies (118 Dryden Ave. in Collegetown). All of the required readings are also available on two hour reserve in Mann Library. Expectations: Students are expected to have read all of the required readings before class. Each week two to four students will be designated leaders for organizing the class session. Students have a great deal of latitude in organizing the class sessions. In the past, students have organized 'role playing' situations, written and distributed discussion questions for the readings, organized debates around the topic of the week, and brought in guest speakers or videos to complement the readings. A sign-up sheet will be circulated the second week of class. The goal is to have all class members serve as session leaders at least two times during the semester. Case Study, Term Paper, or Annotated Bibliography Every student is required to complete one major assignment for the course. This assignment can take one of three forms: 1) A term paper on a topic related to the course (15-20 double spaced pages; 2) An annotated bibliography of at least 20 sources organized around one of the topics covered in the course; 3) A case study about some aspect of sustainable agriculture. Students who choose to write a case study must attend a one hour 'working lab' several times during the semester. The laboratory is designed to assist students in the preparation of their case studies. The set of case studies produced by the students will be published and distributed by the Farming Alternatives Program as part of their community agriculture development effort. There will be no mid-term or final examination in the course. Grades will be based on participation in class discussions, organization of class sessions, and the term paper/annotated bibliography/case study. SANET: The sustainable agriculture bulletin board As part of the course, students may wish to subscribe to and monitor the sustainable agriculture bulletin board -- sanet-mg. Sanet serves as a worldwide forum for all topics related to sustainable agriculture. About 80% of the postings are from North America. Several sustainable agriculture newsletters as well as job listings, bibliographies, and inquiries from researchers and practioners comprise the bulk of the material on sanet. A typical day will see between six and eight postings, though occasionally a controversial topic may generate between 20 and 30 postings a day. To subscribe to sanet send the following command to almanac@ces.ncsu.edu subscribe sanet-mg If you wish to unsubscribe to sanet after the semester, send the following command to almanac@ces.ncsu.edu unsubscribe sanet-mg Note, do not send anything else in the body of the message except 'subscribe sanet-mg' or 'unsubscribe sanet-mg'. COURSE SCHEDULE Week 1: Introduction (September 1) Week 2: The Historical Roots of Sustainable Agriculture and Development (September 8) Bailey, Liberty Hyde. 1915. The Holy Earth. Ithaca: New York State College of Agriculture. Week 3: Conventional Agriculture and Development: The Neoclassical Paradigm (September 15) Urban, Thomas N. 1991. "Agricultural industrialization: It's inevitable." Choices 6(4):4-6. Drabenscott, Mark. 1994. "Industrialization: Steady current or tidal wave?" Choices 9(4):4-8. Hurt, Chris. 1994. "Industrialization in the pork industry." Choice 9(4):9-13. Boehlje, Michael. 1996. "Industrialization of agriculture: what are the implications?" Choices 11(1):30-33. Avery, Dennis T. 1997. "Environmentally sustaining agriculture." Choices 12(1):10-14. Bunyard, Peter. 1996. "Industrial agriculture -- driving climate change. The Ecologist 26(6):290-298. Tweeten, Luther. 1993. "Agriculture, government and cults." Presented to symposium on Uncle Sam, Markets and Morality: The Role of Government in Agriculture. Waldorf College, Forest City, Iowa (April 22). Week 4: Sustainable Agriculture and Development: Neoclassical Critique and Paradigm Shift (September 22) Beus, Curtis E. and Riley E. Dunlap. 1990. "Conventional versus alternative agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of the debate." Rural Sociology 55(4):590-616. Jackson, Wes. 1990. "Making sustainable agriculture work." Pp. 132-141 in Robert Clark (ed.) Our Sustainable Table. San Francisco: North Point Press. Ikerd, John. 1994. "On defining sustainable agriculture." Paper posted on Sanet-mg. Lyson, Thomas A. and Elizabeth Barham. 1997. "Civil society and agricultural sustainability." Unpublished paper, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University. Flora, Cornelia. 1995. "Social capital and sustainability: agriculture and communities in the Great Plains and Corn Belt." In H.K. Schwarzweller and T.A. Lyson (eds.), Research in Rural Sociology and Development: Focus on Sustainable Development. Week 5: Indigenous Knowledge and Agricultural Development (September 29) Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp (eds.). 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, Week 6: Social Movements for Sustainable Agriculture (October 6) Barham, Elizabeth. 1997. "Social movements for sustainable agriculture in France: a Polanyian perspective." Society and Natural Resources 10:239-49. Barham, Elizabeth. 1996. "Karl Polanyi and the issue of food security." Unpublished paper, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University. Harwood, Richard R. 1990. "A history of sustainable agriculture." Pp. 3-19 in Sustainable Agriculture Systems, edited by Clive Edwards et al. Ankeney, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Week 7: The Goldschmidt Hypothesis: Agricultural Structure and Community Well-Being (October 20) Goldschmidt, Walter. 1946. "Small business and the community: A study in the Central Valley of California on the effects of scale of farm operation." Report of the Special Committee to Study Problems of American Small Business, U.S. Senate, 79th Congress, 2nd Session, Committee Print 13. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Goldschmidt, Walter. 1978. "Agribusiness and political power." Pp. 455-491 in As You Sow. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun and Co., Publishers. MacCannell, Dean. 1988. "Industrial agriculture and rural community degradation." Pp. 15-75 in L.E. Swanson (ed.), Agriculture and Community Change in the U.S. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Week 8: Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture (October 27 Gussow, Joan Dye. 1991. Chicken Little, Tomato Sauce and Agriculture: Who Will Produce Tomorrow's Food? New York: Bootstrap Press. Week 9: Local Perspectives on Sustainable Agriculture and Development (November 3) Waters, Alice. 1990. "The Farm -- Restaurant Connection." Pp. 113-124 in Robert Clark (ed.) Our Sustainable Table. San Francisco: North Point Press. Fieldhouse, Paul. 1996. "Community shared agriculture." Agriculture and Human Values 13(3):43-47. Hamm, Michael W. 1993. "The potential for a localized food supply in New Jersey." Paper presented at the Environment, Culture and Food Equity Conference. Penn State University (June). Kloppenburg, Jack, John Hendrickson, and G.W. Stevenson. 1995. "Coming into the foodshed." In W. Vitek and W. Jackson (eds.), Home Territories: Essays on Community and the Land. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lyson, Thomas A. and Judy Green. 1997. "The agricultural marketscape: implications of alternative food systems for communities and landscapes in the Northeast." Unpublished paper, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University. Center for Rural Affairs. 1988. "Agriculture: A foundation for rural economic development." Center for Rural Affairs Newsletter, November SR-5 - SR-8. Week 10: Community Agriculture Development (November 10) Duncan Hilchey and Judy Green from the Farming Alternatives Program will organize this session Lyson, Thomas A., Gilbert Gillespie, and Duncan Hilchey. 1995. "Farmer's markets and the local community: bridging the formal and informal economy." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10(3):108-113. Garnett, Tara. 1996. "Farming the city: the potential of urban agriculture. The Ecologist 26(6):299-307. Farming Alternatives Program. 1997. Farming for the Future: A Guide to Sustaining Agriculture in Your Community. Community Agriculture Development Series, Farming Alternatives Program, Cornell University. Farming Alternatives Program. 1994. Community Agriculture Development" Profile of 32 Initiatives in New York State. Community Agriculture Development Series, Farming Alternatives Program, Cornell University. Week 11: Global Perspectives on Sustainable Agriculture and Development (November 17) Goldberg, Ray A. 1993. "New international linkages shaping the U.S. food system." Choices 8(4):15-17. Watkins, Kevin. 1996. "Free trade and farm fallicies: from the Uruguay Round to the Wolrd Food Summit. The Ecologist 26(6):244- 255. Friedland, William H. 1994. "The global fresh fruit and vegetable system: An industrial organization analysis." Pp. 173-189 in P. McMichael (ed.), The Global Restructuring of Agro-Food Systems. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Avery, Natalie, Martine Drake and Tim Lang. 1993. "Codex alimentarius." The Ecologist 23(3):110-112. Steinbrecher, Ricarda A. 1996. "From Green Revolution to gene revolution: the environmental risks of genetially engineered crops. The Ecologist 26(6):273-281. Lehman, Karen and Al Krebs. 1996. "Control of the world's food supply." Pp. 122-130 in J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (eds.), The Case Against the Global Economy. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Shiva, Vandana and Rdha Holla-Bhar. 1996. "Piracy by patent: the case of the neem tree." Pp. 146-159 in J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (eds.), The Case Against the Global Economy. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Week 12: Understanding the Food System (November 24) Kneen, Brewster. 1993. From Land to Mouth. Toronto: NC Press Limited. Week 13: Policy Options (December 1) Lappe, Francis Moore. "Food, Farming and Democracy." Pp. 143-160 in Robert Clark (ed.) Our Sustainable Table. San Francisco: North Point Press. Stauber, Karl N. 1994. "The futures of agriculture." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9(1/2):9-15. Gillespie, Gilbert W., Jr. 1995. "Sustainable agriculture and prospects for rural community development in the United States. Pp. 167-191 in H.K. Schwarzweller and T.A. Lyson (eds.), Research in Rural Sociology and Development: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities, Vol. 6. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press. Rambo, Terry. 1997. "The fallacy of global sustainable development." Asia Pacific Issues, No. 30. East-West Center. End Syllabus *************************** Nancy Grudens Schuck Doctoral Candidate Department of Education 119 Kennedy Hall Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 U.S.A. E-mail: ng13@cornell.edu FAX: (607) 255-7905 *************************** ------=_NextPart_000_01BCCDCA.9DD681E0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (LISTPROC2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.15]) by pearl.mhtc.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/FNG) with SMTP id OAA18484 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:04:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA06440; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:17:02 -0400 Received: from postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (POSTOFFICE.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.7]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA03942 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:41:43 -0400 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA13666 for SAED-SHARE-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.236.155.195] (CU-DIALUP-1221.CIT.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.155.195]) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA13540 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:47:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:00:31 +0000 Reply-To: SAED-SHARE-L@cornell.edu Sender: owner-SAED-SHARE-L@cornell.edu Precedence: bulk From: ng13@cornell.edu (Nancy Grudens Schuck) To: SAEd-Share-L@cornell.edu Subject: COURSE POST SAED: Dick Richardson, Natural Resource Management, University of Texas, U.S.A. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Sender: ng13@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu X-PH: V4.1@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN X-UIDL: 686bf950d42c70cde82c00341c83d0ce +>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+ COURSE POST SAEd-Share-L This post contains a syllabus of a course in the broad category of agricultural and food system sustainable development. This syllabus is mainly available on the Web, but this post contains the background information that is presented to students. SAEd-Share-L welcomes additional contributions of similar courses at any type of higher educational setting to share with other educators. Regards, Nancy Grudens-Schuck, list manager, SAEd-Share-L >+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+ Educator: Dr. R.H. (Dick) Richardson Course Title: "Natural Resource Management" at URL: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/resource Level: Graduate and undergraduate Institution: Zoology Department, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 78712, U.S.A. Phone: (512) 471-9651; E-mail: d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu >Language: English Date of First Post: September 29, 1997 > >+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+ > Dear SAEd subscribers: This course is really worth a look on the Web at URL: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/resource where it is available for use by Dick Richardson's students in this course on Natural Resource Managment. Dick is a long time SAEd-Subscrdiber. He has not only based his course on Holistic Management (TM) ideas, but provides his students with experiential learning opportunties like structured group work, structured self-reflection and assessment, and interesting case studies. Dick once told me that his course does not have 'agriculture' in the title, but is 'all about' sustainable agriculture, and I could not agree more. I have provided the text from only one of Dick's Web sites so that you may see some of the content. However, you will learn more about Dick's organization and goals if you visit the several Web pages that he has created for the course. These Web pages do more than simply provide text to students: Dick says that the Web is an integral part of the course. He teaches the course in the spring so the Web pages may undergo some change from this time until the course begins again. Regards, Nancy GS ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Natural Resource Management > Dick Richardson > >BACKGROUND > >Natural Resource Management involves two courses, one at the undergraduate >level (Zoology 470C), and the other at the graduate level (Zoology 384L). >They are combined in order to take advantage of having two levels of >student >expertise working together. A similar team composition is common in the >"real world" of business or government or non-governmental agencies (NGOs). >The graduate students will have an opportunity to use their advanced >training in their specialty and in environmental sciences, and they will >refine their technical skills in leading a team to accomplish one or more >objectives, publication of a report. They will learn, and lead a team, in a >holistic decision process to reach the project objectives. The >undergraduates are expected to have modest or advanced technical knowledge >in biology and environmental sciences, but are expected to be inexperienced >in the application of this knowledge in management. In most cases, neither >graduate nor undergraduate students are expected to have experience working >in a team and making decisions holistically. Outside of academic circles, >team work is the norm, and requires a different set of skills, whether one >is the leader or a member of the team. For individuals who prefer to work >alone, team work is not only possible, but often depends upon such people t= o >"go away" for a while and finish a task and return to interface with the >rest of the team. Teamwork does not mean exclusively working "in the same >harness" but working in a coordinated way to accomplish a specified >objective. > >All students will begin managing natural resources with their own lives. A >simple measure, their ecological footprint, will be calculated and >periodically evaluated by each individual. The general implications will be >a backdrop for all activities in the course. > > OBJECTIVES > >Objectives are similar in graduate and undergraduate courses, but some >differences apply since the graduate students will be Team Leaders. The >objectives apply to three areas, Teamwork, Management Procedures, and >Consensus Building. Each team will develop the objectives for their project >that employ the research skills and scientific foundations. > >Management Procedures > >Both graduate and undergraduate students will be expected to accomplish the >following: > > 1. Calculate a personal "Ecological Footprint" and determine ways to > reduce the area of land that is needed to provide the natural resource= s > for personal existence. > 2. Describe how their personal decisions are made, and organize this > procedure into a "decision making flow-chart". > 3. Draft a holistic goal for oneself, or collaboratively for one's > immediate family, identify the "whole" that is affected by and utilize= d > in personal decisions, and begin to make holistic decisions in > day-to-day activities. > 4. Draft a holistic goal for different management units in a variety of > circumstances (supplied as exercises) and involving different people i= n > order to compare holistic decisions to those made using a "conventiona= l > decision process". > 5. Contribute to team objectives in the analysis of decision making > processes of a cooperating organization that "hosts" the team, and > suggest how holistic decisions would differ from existing decisions. > 6. Write a term report with their team on their project, which will be > "published" on the web site for the course, and, if of excellent > quality will be submitted for peer review for formal publication in an > electronic journal. (The completion of a formal publication will exten= d > beyond the end of the class, and will not be part of the class grade.) > >Teamwork > >An undergraduate student will be expected to accomplish the following: > > 1. Identify their optimum role(s) in a team that utilizes their skills an= d > knowledge to compliment other members of their team to accomplish one > or more objectives. > 2. Take responsibility to work with leader and team members to monitor an= d > improve team effectiveness in reaching the objective(s). > 3. Participate in a team with high personal commitment to maximize the > team's effectiveness. > 4. Apply knowledge from courses and experience and take initiative to > gather other information or obtain skills as needed to accomplish the > team's objective(s). > 5. Carry out responsibilities as a team member, with a commitment to high > quality work completed "on time". This includes preparing parts of the > final report in a form that are clearly written, accurate, and > contribute to successful completion of the team's objectives. (Only > those willing to carry through to publication will be included on the > list of authors, should the team report qualify for submission for > formal publication.) > >A graduate student will be expected to accomplish the following: > > 1. Identify the strengths of team members, and organize these in an > effective way to accomplish one or more objectives. > 2. Build the collaborative dynamics in a team, serving as a catalyst for > members feeling they are valuable members with pride in the success of > the team. > 3. Facilitate and instruct the team in the consensus building process, an= d > guide the decisions using the holistic management decision making > process. > 4. Organize the initial plan to accomplish the objectives, and then > facilitate adaptive improvements with the contributions from the team > throughout the team's work schedule. (This may mean any degree of > revising the plan, provided the revisions produce a better plan. > Adaptations to changing circumstances, new information, or other > "corrections" in objectives or strategies are part of holistic > management.) > 5. Organize the writing of the report that presents the team's results > that accomplish the objective(s) or revised objectives, and take the > lead in blending results into a document suitable for formal > publication. > >Consensus Building > >Both graduate and undergraduate students will be expected to accomplish the >following: > > 1. Describe and characterize the differences between working with > "collaboration" and working with "consensus." (These will be discussed > in class.) > 2. Facilitate and skillfully participate in groups to create > consensus-based actions. > 3. Show how groups functioning with consensus and using the holistic > decision making process can effectively manage natural resources in > sustainable, or even regenerative, ways. When such a result is deemed > impossible, then a student will identify the restrictions that prevent > such management. > >Maintained by Dick Richardson >d.richardson@mail.utexas.edu >Last updated 02/17/97: Copyright=A9 1997 R. H. Richardson. > >End syllabus *************************** Nancy Grudens Schuck Doctoral Candidate Department of Education 119 Kennedy Hall Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 U.S.A. E-mail: ng13@cornell.edu =46AX: (607) 255-7905 *************************** ------=_NextPart_000_01BCCDCA.9DD681E0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (LISTPROC2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.15]) by pearl.mhtc.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/FNG) with SMTP id UAA14613 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:53:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA18745; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:23:23 -0400 Received: from postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (POSTOFFICE.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.7]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA18633 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:22:40 -0400 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA21381 for SAED-SHARE-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [132.236.155.95] (CU-DIALUP-0917.CIT.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.155.95]) by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA21273 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:41:24 +0000 Reply-To: SAED-SHARE-L@cornell.edu Sender: owner-SAED-SHARE-L@cornell.edu Precedence: bulk From: ng13@cornell.edu (Nancy Grudens Schuck) To: SAEd-Share-L@cornell.edu Subject: COURSE POST SAED: Berardi, Agroecology & Sustainable Agriculture, W. Wash. Univ., U.S.A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Sender: ng13@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu X-PH: V4.1@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN X-UIDL: 4e9b2896f9e4be9ecaeed8fb2a1905dc Status: U +>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+ COURSE POST SAEd-Share-L This post contains a syllabus of a course in the broad category of agricultural and food system sustainable development. This syllabus was first posted in May 1997 and has not been substantially changed. SAEd-Share-L welcomes additional contributions of similar courses at any type of higher educational setting to share with other educators. Regards, Nancy Grudens-Schuck, list manager, SAEd-Share-L +>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+ Educator: Dr. Gigi Berardi Course Title: Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture Level: Undergraduate Institution: Dept. of Geography and Environmental Social Sciences MS 9085 Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225 E-mail: gberardi@cc.wwu.edu Language: English =46irst post: May 1997 Date of Repost: September 29, 1997 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture Gigi Berardi Western Washington University > > >Objectives of the Course: > > The objectives of the course are to provide an overview of key concepts, > theories, and methodologies in agroecology, and to give students direct > experience and knowledge of sustainable agriculture and horticulture > practices and principles. Students also will gain proficiency in ecologica= l > concepts and principles applied to the design and management of sustainabl= e > food production systems, and technologies and policies that promote energy= , > soil, and water conservation. > > > > >Course Structure and Evaluation: > > This is an upper-division seminar. This implies certain responsibilities > for all participants. Attendance and participation are required. Students > are expected to keep a journal or notebook. The journal is a reflective > record of the readings for the following week, and your response to it. > Focus on the themes that you feel most comfortable expanding upon and > review them weekly. Besides the assigned material, the journal should > include other material that you have read in the past or are currently > reading. It also should include some reflections on the Sustainable > Agriculture/Development List Server/E-mail Discussion Group > (SAED-SHARE-L@Cornell.edu; we will help you subscribe to the Group). To th= e > extent that you can, make sure that you also draw on your own experiences. > See attached sheet on "Journals" for more information. > > > >Journals are due Monday of each week at 4pm, beginning April 7 (so the > >entries for April 7 will need to cover the readings for the first two > >weeks of the course), in Gigi Berardi's mailbox in AH 217. They will be > >returned during class on Wednesday. > > >In addition, students will be asked to write one take-home midterm exam > >and to complete a term project. The project will also include a class > >presentation. The presentation, which will be based on your project, is > >essentially a seminar. You will in effect be teaching class, so you can > >run it anyway you feel effectively communicates information to the rest o= f > >the class. > > >It is recommended that students select from one of the following topics > >for their term project: > > >A Farm Plan for a Mixed Crop/Dairy Operation in Whatcom County > > > >Soils and Land Capability Assessment for Agricultural Lands in Whatcom or > >Snohomish Counties/Agricultural History Survey > > > >A Soil Microbiology Study (taxonomic units and population densities; > >effects of mulches and cover crops). > > > >A Design for a CSA Operation for Whatcom or Snohomish Counties/Western > >Washington (including designing a field trip) > > > >Investigation of the History Behind Familiar Features of our Rural > >Landscape and the Philosophical Concern for "Place" (including designing > >an experiential education curriculum/field trip) > > > >Agroecological/Botanical History of Local and Seasonal Foods (with > >attention to the environmental quality of the agroecosystem in which the > >foods are grown and processed). > > > >We will discuss these and other options for the project together in class= . > > > >Grades and Grading: > > > >The final grade* in the course will be based on -- > > > > Writing assignments (including a class journal and a self-assessment) > >(worth 30%) > > > > A term project/paper (worth 50%) > > > >=FA A midterm exam (worth 20%). > > >*Please note that attendance and participation are required in this > >course. You will need to regularly attend the field trips. > > >Required Texts: > > > >Altieri, Miguel. 1995. Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative > >Agriculture. > > > >Berardi, Gigi, ed. ENVR 410, SPRING 1997, Readings. Bellingham, WA: 1997. > > > >Recommended Texts: > > > >Dillman, Don A. 1994. Against All Odds: Rural Community in the >Information Age. > > > >Fitchen, Janet. 1991. Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, > >Identity, and Survival in Rural America. > > > >Oregon State University Extension Service. 1993. A Sustainable Resource > >Guide for Oregon and Washington. > > > >Tentative Outline and Readings > > > >NB: Readings marked with a * are in the class reader. > > > > Copies of the recommended readings are available from Gigi > > > > Berardi. > > > >Week 1 Apr. 2-4 Overview > > > -Discussion of projects and sustainability study resources > > > >Required Readings: Altieri, Agroecology, Chapters 1 and 6. > > > >*Harwood, Richard R. 1990. A History of Sustainable Agriculture. In > >Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. 3-19. > > > >*Lovins, Amory, L. Hunter-Lovins, and M. Bender. 1984. Energy and > >Agriculture. In Meeting the Expectations of the Land, Wes Jackson et al, > >eds., pp. 68-86. > > > >*Waltner-Toews, David. 1996. Ecosystem health -- A framework for > >implementing sustainability in agriculture. BioScience. pp. 686-689. > > > >Week 2 Apr. 9-11 > Socio-Economic Consequences and Challenges > of Agricultural Technologies: A Historical Perspective > > > -Regional geography of agriculture > > > -Size, scale, and structure issues in agriculture > > > -Agroecology > > > > FIELD TRIP > > > > > > > >Required Readings: Berardi, Gigi M., and Charles G. Geisler, eds. > >1984. The Social Consequences and Challenges of New Agricultural > >Technologies, Chapters 3-7 (The Influence of Farm Machinery on Production > >and Labor, Technology on the Farm, The Social Effects of Recent Trends in > >the Mechanization of Agriculture, The Impact of Mechanization of > >Agriculture on the Farm Population of the South, Social Aspects of Farm > >Mechanization in Oklahoma). (ON RESERVE) > > > >*Cronon, William. 1983. A World of Fields and Fences. In Changes in > >the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England, pp 127-156= . > > > > > >*Flora, Cornelia B. 1990. Sustainability of Agriculture and Rural > >Communities. In Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones, Charles A. > >Francis et al, eds., pp. 343-358. > > > >*Goldschmidt, Walter. 1978. As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social > >Consequences of Agribusiness, pp. xxiii-liv; 455-491. > > > >Week 3 Apr. 16-18 Agriculture and Human Values > > > -Local agricultural histories > > > -Rural landscape and the philosophical concern for "place" > > > (evening) AGROECOSYSTEM SIMULATION > > > > FIELD TRIP > > > > > > > >Required Readings: *Berry, Wendell. 1977. The Unsettling of America: > >Culture and Agriculture, pp. 3-14, 39-48, 51-79. > > > >*Jackson, Wes. 1987. Meeting the Expectations of the Land. Altars of > >Unhewn Stone: Science and the Earth, pp. 63-76. > > > >*Kittridge, William. 1987. Owning It All, pp. 55-71. > > > >*Logsdon, Gene. 1984. The Importance of Traditional Farming Practices > >for a Sustainable Modern Agriculture. In Meeting the Expectations of the > >Land, Wes Jackson et al, eds., pp. 3-18. > > > >*Nearing, Helen and Scott. 1970. Our Good Earth. Living the Good Life= , > >pp. 83-106. > > > >*Snyder, Gary. 1984. Good, Wild, Sacred. In Meeting the Expectations o= f > >the Land, Wes Jackson et al, eds., pp. 195-207. > > > >Recommended Readings: Clancy, Katherine L. 1990. Agriculture and Human > >Health. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, > >eds., pp. 655-665. > > > >Dillman, Don A. 1994. Against All Odds: Rural Community in the Informatio= n > >Age. (skim) > > > >Fitchen, Janet. 1991. Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, > >Identity, and Survival in Rural America. (skim) > > > >Rodale, Robert. 1990. Sustainability: An Opportunity for Leadership. > >In Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. > >77-86. > > > >Viederman, Stephen. 1990. A Matter of Commitment. In Sustainable > >Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. 666-673. > > > > >Week 4 Apr. 23-25 Agroecosystems > > > -Soils, soil and water conservation > > > -Farm plans > > > > FIELD TRIP > > > >Required Readings: Altieri, Agroecology, Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 8. > > > >*Matheson, Bill. 1996. Rural Property Planning Land Care, pp. 15-20, > >73-92, 93-102, 103-114. > > > >Recommended Readings: Gliessman, Stephen R. 1990. Understanding the > >Basis of Sustainability for Agriculture in the Tropics:Experiences in > >Latin America. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et > >al, eds., pp. 378-390. > > > >Matheson, Bill. 1996. Rural Property Planning Land Care, remainder of th= e > >book. (ON RESERVE) > > > >Okigbo, Bede N. 1990. Sustainable Agricultural Systems in Tropical > >Africa. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, > >eds., pp. 323-352. > > >Week 5 Apr. 30- Components of Sustainable Agroecosystems > > > May 2 (Resources and Practices) > > > -Soil and water conservation, cont. > > > >Required Readings: Altieri, Agroecology, Chapters 9, 10, 11, and 17. > > > >*Hauptli, Holly, David Katz, Bruce R. Thomas, and Robert Goodman. > >1990. Biotechnology and Crop Breeding for Sustainable Agriculture. In > >Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. > >141-156. > > > >*Jenny, Hans. 1984. The Making and Unmaking of a Fertile Soil. In > >Meeting the Expectations of the Land, Wes Jackson et al, eds., pp. 42-55= . > > > >*Paoletti, Maurizio G., and D. Pimentel. 1996. Genetic Engineering in > >Agriculture and the Environment. BioScience. pp. 665-673. > > > >Recommended Readings: Altieri, Agroecology, Chapters 12, 13, 14, and 15. > > > >Brady, Nyle C. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils, Chapters 10, 13= , > >14, and 16. > > > >King, Larry D. 1990. Soil Nutrient Management in the United States. I= n > >Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. > >89-106. > > > >Laflen, John M., Rattan Lal, and Samir A. El-Swaify 1990. Soil > >Erosion and a Sustainable Agriculture. In Sustainable Agricultural > >Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. 569-581. > > > >Miller, Fred P., and William E. Larson. 1990. Lower Input Effects on > >Soil Productivity and Nutrient Cycling. In Sustainable Agricultural > >Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. 549-568. > > > >Parker, Charles F. 1990. Role of Animals in Sustainable Agriculture. > >In Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. > >238-248. > > > > >Week 6 May 7-9 Conversions to Sustainable Systems > > > -Case studies > > > > FIELD TRIP > > >Required Readings: Altieri, Agroecology, Chapter 16. > > > >Berardi, Gigi. 1985. Energy Use in Italian Agriculture: Alternatives to > >Mineral Fertilizers. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture. (ON > >RESERVE) > > > >*Liebhardt, W.C., R.W. Andrews, M.N. Culik, R.R. Harwood, R.R. Janke, > >J.K. Radke, and S.L. Rieger-Schwartz. 1989. Crop Production During > >Conversion from Conventional to Low-InputMethods. Agronomy Journal, pp. > >150-159. > > > >*Lighthall, David R. 1995. Farm Structure and Chemical Use in the Corn > >Belt. Rural Sociology, pp. 505-520. > > > >*Perkins, John H. Undated. Cuba, Mexico, and India: Technical and Socia= l > >Changes in Agriculture During Political Crisis. Unpublished Paper, pp. > >1-41 (Olympia: The Evergreen State College). > > > >*Pimentel, David, Gigi Berardi, and Sarah Fast. 1983. Energy > >Efficiency of Farming Systems: Organic and Conventional Agriculture. > >Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, pp. 359-372. > > > >*Rosset, Peter, and Medea Benjamin. 1994. Cuba's Nationwide Conversio= n > >to Organic Agriculture. Capitalism Nature Socialism: A Journal of > >Socialist Ecology, pp. 79-97. > > > >*Thompson, Richard, Sharon Thompson, and Derrick Exner. 1990. Case > >Study: A Resource-Efficient Farm with Livestock. In Sustainable > >Agriculture in Temperate Zones, Charles A. Francis et al, eds., pp. > >263-280. > > > >Recommended Readings: Andrews, Rebecca W., Steven E. Peters, Rhonda R. > >Janke, and Warren W. Sahs. 1990. Converting ToSustainable Farming > >Systems. In Sustainable Agriculture In Temperate Zones, Charles A. > >Francis et al, eds., pp. 281-314. > > > >Buttel, Frederick H., Gilbert W. Gillespie Jr., and Allison Power. 1990= . > >Sociological Aspects ofAgricultural Sustainability in the United States: > >A New York State Case Study. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A= . > >Edwards et al, eds., pp. 515-532. > > > >Cordray, S.M., L.S. Lev, R.P. Dick, and H. Murray. 1993. > >Sustainability of Pacific Northwest Horticultural Producers. Journal of > >Production Agriculture, pp. 121-125. > > > >Gliessman, Stephen G., M.R. Werner, S.L. Sweezey, E. Caswell, J. > >Cochran, and F. Rosado-May. 1994. Conversion to an Organic Strawberr= y > >Production System in Coastal Central California: A Comparative Study > >(Santa Cruz: Agroecology Program, UC Santa Cruz). > > > >Luo, Shi ming, and Chun ru Han. 1990. Ecological Agriculture in China= . > >In Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. > >299-322. > > > >Parr, J.F., R.I. Papendick, I.G. Youngberg, R.E. Meyer. 1990. > >Sustainable Agriculture in the United States. In Sustainable Agricultura= l > >Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. 50-67. > > > >Vereijken, P. 1990. Research on Integrated Arable Farming and Organic > >Mixed Farming in the Netherlands. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems, > >Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. 287-298. > > > >Villachica, Hugo, Jose E. Silva, Jose Roberto Peres, and Carlos Magno > >C. da Rocha. 1990. Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the Humid Tropic= s > >of South America. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards > >et al, eds., pp. 391-437. > > > >Week 7 May 14-16 Knowledge Systems and Research Approaches > > > -Case studies > > > >Required Readings: Altieri, Agroecology, Chapters 2 and 7. > > > >*Bezdicek, David F., and C. DePhelps. 1994. Innovative Approaches for > >Integrated Research and Educational Programs. American Journal of > >Alternative Agriculture. > > >*Lockeretz, William. 1990. Major Issues Confronting Sustainable > >Agriculture. In Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones, Charles A. > >Francis et al, eds., pp. 423-438. > > > >*Francis, Charles, J. King, J. DeWitt, J. Bushnell, and L. Lucas. > >1990. Participatory Strategies for Information Exchange. American > >Journal of Alternative Agriculture, pp. 153-160. > > > >*Gerber, John M. 1992. Farmer Participation in Research: A Model for > >Adaptive Research and Education. American Journal of Alternative > >Agriculture, pp. 118-121. > > > >*Hassanein, Neva, and J.R. Kloppenburg Jr. 1995. Where the Grass Grows > >Again: Knowledge Exchange in the Sustainable Agriculture Movement. Rura= l > >Sociology, pp. 721-740. > > > >*Kromm, David E., and Stephen E. White. 1991. Reliance On Sources of > >Information for Water-Saving Practices by Irrigators in the High Plains o= f > >the U.S.A. Journal of Rural Studies, pp. 411-421. > > > >*Rzewnicki, Phil. 1991. Farmers Perceptions of Experiment Station > >Research, Demonstrations, and On-Farm Research in Agronomy. Journal of > >Agronomy Education, pp. 31-36. > > > >*Thornley, K. 1990. Involving Farmers in Agricultural Research: A > >Farmers Perspective. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, pp. > >174-177. > > >Recommended Readings: Hahn, Natalie D. 1990. Compound and Household > >Farming: A Sustainable System for AfricanAgriculture. In Sustainable > >Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. 504-514. > > >Lev, L. S., D. McGrath, H. Murray, and R. D. William. 1993. > >Organizing and Conducting Farmer-Scientist Focus Sessions. Journal of > >Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, pp. 148-152. > > > >Week 8 May 21-23 Making It Happen: Policies and Economics > > > -Case studies > > > MEMORIAL DAY FIELD TRIP (with Natural Resources Management class) > > > >Required Readings: Harlin, John M., and Gigi M. Berardi, eds. 1987. > >Agricultural Soil Loss: Processes, Policies, and Prospects, Chapters, 12, > >13, 15, and 16. (ON RESERVE) > > > >*Flora, Cornelia B. 1990. Policy Issues and Agricultural Sustainability= . > >In Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones, Charles A. Francis et al, > >eds., pp. 361-370. > > >*Madden, J. Patrick, and Thomas L. Dobbs. 1990. The Role of Economics > >in Achieving Low-Input Farming Systems. Sustainable Agricultural Systems= , > >Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. 459-477. > > > >*National Research Council. 1989. Economic Evaluation of Alternative > >Farming Systems. Alternative Agriculture, pp. 195-244. > > > >Recommended Readings: Barker, Randolph, and Duane Chapman. 1990. The > >Economics of Sustainable Agricultural Systems inDeveloping Countries. In > >Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et al, eds., pp. > >478-494. > > > >Week 9 May 28-30 Future Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture > > > -Projects > > > PROJECT FIELD TRIP > > >Required Readings: Altieri, Agroecology, Chapter 18. > > > >Firebaugh, Francille M. 1990. Sustainable Agricultural Systems: A > >Concluding View. Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Clive A. Edwards et > >al, eds., pp. 674-676. (ON RESERVE) > > > >Francis, Charles A. 1990. Future Dimensions Of Sustainable Agriculture. > >In Sustainable Agriculture In Temperate Zones, Charles A. Francis et al, > >eds., pp. 439-466. (ON RESERVE) > > >*Jackson, Dana. 1984. The Sustainable Garden. In Meeting the > >Expectations of the Land, Wes Jackson et al, eds., pp. 106-114. > > >*Jackson, Wes. 1987. A Search for the Unifying Concept for Sustainable > >Agriculture. Altars of Unhewn Stone: Science and the Earth, pp. 119-146. > > >_______. 1987. Toward a Common Covenant. Altars of Unhewn Stone: > >Science and the Earth, pp. 147-158 (ON RESERVE) > > > >Snyder, Gary. 1984. Good, Wild, Sacred. Meeting the Expectations of th= e > >Land, Wes Jackson et al, eds., pp. 195-207. (ON RESERVE) > > > >Week 10 June 4-6 Future Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture > > > -Projects > > > >FINAL MEETING Future Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture > > > >Thursday, June 12 -Projects > > > >3:30-5:30 End Syllabus *************************** Nancy Grudens Schuck Doctoral Candidate Department of Education 119 Kennedy Hall Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 U.S.A. E-mail: ng13@cornell.edu =46AX: (607) 255-7905 *************************** ------=_NextPart_000_01BCCDCA.9DD681E0-- From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 02:27:38 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA19028; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:27:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA12621; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:22:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id BAA26868 for sanet-real; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (root@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id BAA26864 for sanet-mg; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:08:35 -0400 (EDT) From: almanac-admin@ces.ncsu.edu Message-Id: <199710010508.BAA26864@amani.ces.ncsu.edu> Date: Wed Oct 1 01:08:34 EDT 1997 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: sanet-mg Usage Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 35 Following is a periodic notice regarding the use of the sanet-mg mailing group. Please review this important information regarding the proper use of the mailing group. To unsubscribe from sanet-mg, send the following command to almanac@ces.ncsu.edu: unsubscribe sanet-mg Almanac is the NC Cooperative Extension Service's information server. It handles all mailing groups. Almanac commands *should not* be sent to the mailing group. Doing so sends the command to everyone who is subscribed to the mailing group. If you wish to subscribe a colleague to sanet-mg, send the following commands to almanac@ces.ncsu.edu: set address colleagues_full_email_address subscribe sanet-mg Almanac also keeps an archive of the articles that have been posted to sanet-mg. To receive a catalog of archived articles, send the following command to almanac@ces.ncsu.edu: send sanet-mg catalog sanet-mg is a "forum" mailing group; to submit an article, simply send your message to sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu. If you have general questions about the mailing groups or Almanac, mail to almanac-help@ces.ncsu.edu. From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 04:10:52 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id EAA21294; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:10:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id EAA29858; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id DAA01880 for sanet-real; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.1stnet.com (root@mail1.1stnet.com [206.104.32.40]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id DAA01877 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:42:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bruce (ppp25.1stnet.com [206.104.46.25]) by dancer.1stnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA06943 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:42:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3431FC70.2DD2@1stnet.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 02:32:01 -0500 From: "Susan K. Snow" Reply-To: sksnow@1stnet.com Organization: Pollution Solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg Subject: questions about co-mingled compost testing and then some... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 36 Does anyone know when in the analysis of co-mingled compost takes place? Is it before or after the batteries and other materials in the mix begin to corrode? I've learned that a serious problem with analytical data from MSW compost is that it does not typically pick up these heavy metal levels in the analysis because the batteries are often still intact when the test is done, only to decompose over time and leak their toxic contents years later. It is my understanding that mixed waste composting basically takes the commingled solid waste stream, commercial and residential, and processes it into smaller particles that are subsequently composted. This is contrasted with source-separated composting which takes yard trimmings, food scraps, non-recycled paper, and commercial organics before they are commingled. Mixed solid waste is high in paper and generally very dry, so that many companies use sewage sludge to provide moisture and nitrogen. Again, it is my understanding that hammermilling systems shred plastics, batteries, and such into little bits that may ultimately contaminate the compost. Other systems, I've heard tell, twist plastics into tiny toothpick-like bits. And, there are companies that sell dyes to color compost the desirable dark brown or black color characteristic of earth rich in organic matter. Mixed waste composting will still have the full gamut of heavy metals, particularly metals from household batteries such as mercury, lead, nickel, cadmium, and zinc. I understand that PCB levels in mixed waste compost are often over 10 PPM as well, of which I and many states have concerns with levels over 1 PPM. Moreover, the USEPA does not regulate mixed waste compost! The fact is that household batteries are in mixed waste, and that they are concentrated into a mixed waste compost. It is also a fact that they are high in heavy metals, and that if they are not removed, they contaminate the compost to levels far in excess of even the most liberal guidelines, much less the EPA 503 sludge rules which are liberal compared with those in the Netherlands and Germany. We have learned from the Seattle Times series how hazardous wastes become fertilizer and the consequences of this action to farmers health, the health of the fields, and grazing animals. http://www.seattletimes.com/todaysnews/browse/html97/fert_070397.html How will the recycling of industrial or municipal solid waste into compost affect the health of farmers and their families, communities down wind, especially when dust blows or fields are burned, such as with sugar cane? Will the soil to dust to lungs or hands to mouth series poison our children, ourselves, as well as the food chain? Does this sustain agriculture or sustain disposal of such materials? My concerns and others have been echoed in The Case for Caution. http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/PDFS/PDFS.html Susan Snow From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 07:08:44 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA23187; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA26223; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id GAA05767 for sanet-real; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 06:17:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net [203.108.7.41]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id GAA05764 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 06:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oznet07.ozemail.com.au (oznet07.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.122]) by server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA23191 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:17:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([202.167.37.190]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA19306 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:17:45 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3432228C.C21@ozemail.com.au> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 20:14:36 +1000 From: "Marsupial Landscapes P.L." X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: [Fwd: Efficacy of hot water on weeds] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------350C62D24DA5" Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 37 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------350C62D24DA5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Marsupial Landscapes Pty Ltd. mailto:marsup@ozemail.com.au Ph: 61-2-99056844 Fax : 61-2-99056244 Please find attached a letter providing and requesting information on hot water control of weeds. As a new-comer to the web I am not sure wether you may have already received the mail as a cc. Please advise me if you do not receive the contents of the attachement. Many thanks Jeremy Winer SYDNEY AUSTRALIA. --------------350C62D24DA5 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <3430DD28.1152@ozemail.com.au> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:06:16 +1000 From: "Marsupial Landscapes P.L." X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Efficacy of hot water on weeds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Marsupial Landscapes Pty Ltd. mailto:marsup@ozemail.com.au Ph: 61-2-99056844 Fax : 61-2-99056244 I have been browsing the web for other persons interested in the use of hot water for controlling weeds. I have been looking at alternatives to the use of biocides for the control of weeds in the built environment ie open public space. There appears to be one or two companies world wide who have developed apparatus for the application of hot water to weeds. The apparatus as they stand at the moment have a few major flaws. - They use in excess of 4 litres per minute of water therefore requiring a cumbersome amount of water to be transported and a continual time consuming refill on avearge every 1 to 2 hours. - The heat exchanger is deisel fuelled; being costly, energy inefficient noisy and potentially polluting. If we are looking for sustainable and non polluting alternatives a cleaner energy source is required. - The consequential size of the apparatus make them unable to unobtrusively operate in the public domain and the volume of water consumed and consequentially out poured causes excessive runoff on paved areas and floods garden beds. -Tractor mounted apparatus are unable to apply control to the crop rows. Trials I have carried out have shown that Hot water at tempertures in excess of 75 degrees C will cause permanent cell collapse within 5 seconds on a majority of soft tissued plants above ground. Controlling more persistant stoloniferous, rhizomateous, corm and bulb weeds requires heating the soil to temperatures in excess of 65 degrees C. To do this the hot water must have time to penetrate the rhizosphere and be of an application temperature high enough to still be of effect at the required depth ie upto 75mm (3"). There is some concern for the other organisms present in the rhizosphere, but worm counts a few days following application are encouraging, probably due to their feeding on resultant dead tissue. Microflora counts have not been done. Mr Hawkins, you mention in correspondance that you are familiar with hot water treatment of weeds. I would be pleased if you could refer me to any published articles, preferably prior to 1991, on the method. I am running overtime on research and would be greatfull for an early response. Jeremy Winer Sydney. --------------350C62D24DA5-- From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 11:18:07 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA28767; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:18:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA21016; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id KAA16391 for sanet-real; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:37:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.1stnet.com (root@mail1.1stnet.com [206.104.32.40]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA16388 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bruce (ppp24.1stnet.com [206.104.46.24]) by dancer.1stnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA15386 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:37:38 -0500 Message-ID: <34325DAB.7C45@1stnet.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 09:26:52 -0500 From: "Susan K. Snow" Reply-To: sksnow@1stnet.com Organization: Pollution Solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re:Farmer Survey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 38 Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:11:35 -0400 Mr. Clarence W. Walker of Indust., Commercial, Muni., and Agri. Waste Processing Systems & Eqpt. wrote: > Bottom line...how do we convert organics that would otherwise be > landfilled into a smouldering pathogen/carcinogen breeding anaerobic > monutainous eyesore or burned? [snip] Is organic material such yard and garden wastes, animal manures, agricultural vegetation linked to cancer? Not from what I can detect from the International Agency for the Research of Cancer. However, manmade chemicals--work place asbestos, solvents, chemicals in printing inks, pesticides, some chemicals that may be in fertilizers, diesel and petroleum products, some cleaning agents, properties of ethylene glycol ethers, toxic metals, including beryllium, radiation, and numerous other human created substances are among the suspects. http://www.iarc.fr/monoeval/allmonos.htm These and other manmade chemical are highly concentrated in municipal solid waste and therefore, landfill leachate. http://www.envirolink.org/pubs/rachel/rhwn090a.htm They may be attached to the organic fraction of the waste stream, such as printing inks are attached to paper or mixed in with organic matter in or when sewage sludge is composted. Does composting destroy or temporarily dilute these fractions? When they are continually laid down and ultimately tilled into the soil, are they not accumulative? Turning composted vegetation and manures into the soil has been practiced by man and nature since time began. However, mixing composted mixed waste is more recent. This apparently occurs due to the public's acceptance of composting sorted materials, and their opposition to incinerators, landfills, and dumping or burning of sewage sludge. [snip] > Making high quality, safe compost to rigid standards is part one..part > two is achieved when the organics are returned to the soil [snip] > and GETTING THE PRODUCT TO THE USERS Why are the U.S.EPA standards for sewage sludge not as rigid as the German or Dutch standards? Is this because the Dutch regulations would more than likely eliminate mixed waste composting as an industry? It is not in my family's best interest that mixed waste compost be spread on farms or private and public lands. The reason many Americans are turning to certified organics is because of the concern of toxic substances being added during growing and processing. How sustainable is spreading composted toxics onto the soils, crops? BTW, I strongly recommend and participate in composting sorted organic materials including vegetation (and food wastes) and animal manures. Wherever composted materials have been added to my soil, the soil has become rich and dark in the color due to added humus, and earth worms are multiplying. Susan Snow From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 14:39:34 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA06662; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA19418; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:34:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id MAA23282 for sanet-real; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:56:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.iatp.org (iatp-2.InnovSoftD.com [208.141.36.66]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id MAA23279 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [208.141.36.78] by mail.iatp.org (Netscape Messaging Server 3.01) with ESMTP id 381 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:01:55 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:12:03 -0600 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: "Kathryn Clements" Subject: Sustainable Labeling Initiatives Procedures Manual Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 39 Hello, I am writing to request information on locally initiated labeling initiatives for agricultural products (ecolabeling, sustainable labeling, social labeling, regional labeling, etc.). Specifically, I am in search of "how to" manuals which describe the process of developing a local labeling initiative for sustainably produced agricultural products. Thank you for your time. Please respond to me directly, kclements@iatp.org, and I will summarize what folks send me for the entire list. Cordially, Kathryn Gilje Clements ************************************************* The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) is developing a program exploring the possibilities of LABELS as instruments to drive more ecologically sound and socially just development. We are researching labeling initiatives, creating an informational database, publishing a monthly bulletin, working on a website, organizing a European labeling tour and conference, and supporting the development of local labeling initiatives. Our fledgling website can be found at http://www.sustain.org/labels. Send kclements@iatp.org a message if you are interested in receiving our monthly bulletin LABELS: Linking Consumers and Producers. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2105 First Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 612/870-3422 Fax 612/870-4846 kclements@iatp.org http://www.sustain.org/enviroag From almanac-request@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 15:48:48 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA08002; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA13432; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:44:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (daemon@localhost) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) id NAA26162 for sanet-real; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server1.wclynx.com (server1.wclynx.com [207.44.186.194]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id NAA26159 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:36:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from LOCALNAME ([207.44.186.229]) by server1.wclynx.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-26952) with SMTP id AAA76 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:36:43 -0700 Message-ID: <3432890B.4A9E@wclynx.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 10:31:55 -0700 From: Diane Cooner Organization: Mt. Jackson Design X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: re: smallfarm-mg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 40 In Rich Molini's post on this thread, he makes the comment that entrepreneurs such as certifying agencies, inspector trainers and consultants have all jumped on the band wagon to suck money out of small organic farmers. I don't see that it is quite that way. >From my view, this movement of growing organically started out small. CCOF originally had farmers inspecting farmers - for free. To check up on each other. Because there were some problems with fraud. As the movement got bigger, everyone got more busy and you couldn't find people to go out and inspect for free. Consumers demanded the verification, so now the movement needed to pay people for the inspection work. I agree with Rich that patronizing small local farmers is best. But what happens in the meantime, while those farmers are building up their local markets? We have had lots of small farmers in our area drop out of CCOF because they no longer needed "the stinking badges" to prove to their customers that they were doing what they said they were doing. So they no longer need the service. Do we stop inspecting completely? What about Glacial Ridge? Unfortunately, the problem does seem to lie with large - large companies have an incentive to commit large fraud for large dollars. But like Walmart, just because we want it to go away doesn't mean it's going to. To not continue to police corporate (that magic word) business, organic or otherwise, has the potential to damage the entire movement. Obviously, you can tell that I am involved with the organic inspector association, and I will put in a plug for them that they are very dedicated people who are working hard to train very dedicated inspectors that (again from my view) carry with them the passion for organics, a love of the planet and sustainability. To pidgeonhole them as entrepreneurs that want to suck off the system is simply not accurate. >From my experience, these people care much more than the certifiers. And, again, I agree, grow, buy, sell local. But don't fault those that are watchdogs for the macro. Diane Cooner From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 17:47:30 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA10648; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17580; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:42:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id QAA01662 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:37:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id QAA01656 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu (fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.52]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id QAA05410 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:37:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (rkimsey@localhost) by fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id QAA08809 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:37:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:37:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Ray Kimsey Message-Id: <9710011637.ZM8807@fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 06sep94) To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Fwd: NEW FREEDOM TO FARM PUBLICATION Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 41 The following mail came in as I was moving the list to the majordomo server.... -------------------------------------------------------------- Return-Path: Brian.A.Devore-1@tc.umn.edu Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.52]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id QAA05167 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:24:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gold.tc.umn.edu by mhub2.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 1 Oct 97 15:24:09 -0500 Received: from pub-22-c-166.dialup.umn.edu by gold.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 1 Oct 97 15:24:05 -0500 From: "Brian DeVore, LSP" Reply-To: "Brian DeVore, LSP" To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: Debra J Elias Subject: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: POPmail 2.3b4 Message-Id: <3432b1696b72446@mhub2.tc.umn.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 97 15:24:46 -0500 CONTACT: Brad DeVries (202) 547-5754 Brian DeVore (612) 653-0618 PRESS RELEASE 10/1/97 LSP ANNOUNCES GUIDE TO NEW FARMING OPTIONS Making the Most of Freedom to Farm Shows how to Make Planting Flexibility Pay WHITE BEAR LAKE, Minn. -- The Land Stewardship Project (LSP) today released Making the Most of Freedom to Farm: Innovative uses of Planting Flexibility and Conservation Programs. This 40-page guide reviews profitable, environmentally beneficial farming practices that are easier for farmers to adopt under new federal agricultural legislation. In 1996, Congress eliminated most of the planting rules that required farmers to plant certain crops in order to qualify for federal support payments. At the same time, the law -- its creators have dubbed it "Freedom to Farm" -- does away with federal protections against wide swings in market prices. Making the Most of Freedom to Farm offers farmers an overview of innovative practices that were difficult to adopt under the old system of commodity payments -- beneficial crop rotations, integrated crop/livestock operations, innovative tillage practices, and other approaches -- and points toward recent sources of more in-depth information. It also includes sections on whole-farm planning approaches and a review of changes in the federal agricultural conservation programs in the 1996 Farm Bill. "Farmers have a great opportunity right now to look for an advantage, for the sort of integrated approaches that will make their farms profitable for the long haul. We can't make it just by copying what the big guys are doing on a smaller scale," said Dave Serfling, a Preston, Minn., farmer who raises hay, corn, hogs, beef and sheep on a highly diverse operation. "As prices for the major commodities shake out a bit, I think more farmers will start to realize the solid, long-term business advantages of diversity and more complex rotations." The guide includes chapters on "Managing for Total Farm Results," "Making Sense of Federal Programs," "Rotations and Cover Crops for Cost Control," "New Livestock Ideas," and "Tillage Tactics." Each chapter includes real-life examples of farms and farmers who are already having success with these techniques and concludes with an extensive list of contact information, print sources and Internet resources for more details on how to make these practices work on the farm. Copies of Making the Most of Freedom to Farm are available from the Land Stewardship Project at 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110. A postage/handling charge of $4.00 will apply to all mail requests. For information on bulk orders, call (612) 653-0618. A Worldwide Web version of the chapter, "Making Sense of Federal Programs," complete table of contents, and news release about Making the Most of Freedom to Farm is available online at: http://sunsite.unc.edu/farming-connection/farmpoli/features/makesens/home.htm Publication of this guide was made possible by a grant from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, Ill. The Land Stewardship Project is a private, non-profit membership organization that works to foster an ethic of stewardship toward the land. LSP promotes sustainable communities and a system of agriculture that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially just. -30- -- Ray Kimsey Ray_Kimsey@ncsu.edu "Selfishness has never been admired..." Phone: 919.515.8449 C.S. Lewis Fax: 919.515.3777 Raleigh, NC USA http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/rkimsey To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 17:58:39 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA10841; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA21489; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:53:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA27373 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:21:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA27179 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.stlnet.com (root@home.stlnet.com [209.96.6.15]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA08360 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 209.96.4.213 (MOTNT03-213.stlnet.com [209.96.4.213]) by home.stlnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA13783; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:18:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3432CC7D.145@stlnet.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 16:21:35 -0600 From: aeashley X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu CC: barryfrench@juno.com Subject: Clarence, Susan et al Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 42 Recently, the teevee show -Beyond 2000- featured a machine built at M.I.T. This machine super heated contaminated soil with synthetic "lightening". The end result was chunks of glass that are impervious to water,chemically inert and well suited to entrapping radioactivity. Needless to say it was facinting. It was reported that this system will be able to process one ton of contaminted soil for about fifty bucks. $50 X (EPA + State Regulators) = $5000/ton ;={ Not many miles from the house I live in and the ground I farm, lies Times Beach. A monument to everything wrong with the way the "system" works. It doesn't work. Ultimatly, one of the corporations responsible for widespread contamination was paid a handsome sum to clean up its own mess. Clean up = spew all over the place by incomplete incinertion and later by leaching of ashes in landfills. Our community could not find within itself the strength of conviction that the folks around New Bedford, Massachusetts relied on to stop an errant EPA and their highly illogical plan to incinerate PCB contminated dirt. Perhaps that community will be among the first to reap the benefits of this new technology. It is too late for this neck of the woods where we now own the dubious distinction of being exposed to DIE-oxin twice, when once was more than enough. A. ---Trying my best in a world that is being TRASHED daily--- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 18:56:31 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA14716; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA03520; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id SAA02114 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id SAA02106 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu (fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.52]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id SAA10011 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (rkimsey@localhost) by fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id SAA10042 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:17:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Ray Kimsey Message-Id: <9710011817.ZM10040@fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 06sep94) To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Major change in SANET-MG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 43 The Sanet-MG mail list has been moved from an almanac maintained list to a majordomo maintained list to add some new features including a digest format. Sending mail to the list is the same as always. See message footer for other instructions or to receive more help on majordomo commands: email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the one word comand "help". -- Ray Kimsey Ray_Kimsey@ncsu.edu "Selfishness has never been admired..." Phone: 919.515.8449 C.S. Lewis Fax: 919.515.3777 Raleigh, NC USA http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/rkimsey To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 21:45:37 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA18781; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:45:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA07625; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:40:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id VAA24478 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id VAA24469 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.33]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id VAA14765 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [12.64.1.73] ([12.64.1.183]) by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with ESMTP id AAA5228 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:16:05 +0000 X-Sender: bioponic@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3432CC7D.145@stlnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:20:52 -0700 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: David Webb Subject: Re: Ashley, Clarence, Susan et al Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 44 Dear Saneteers: Good old American know-how is back in action. Toxic waste dumps, industrial wastes, sludge, mining tailings...you name it...there is now a technology to clean it all up regardless of how nasty it is. Next week, our company, Bioponic International, will be acquiring another company, MR3, Inc., which has developed a state-of-the-art technology making it possible to extract by electrochemical processing any selected element from soil thus rendering *clean* whatever hazardous toxic soil or water that is processed through this system. The by-products are completely non-hazardous fertilizer and water purification chemicals. Recently scientists and engineers from the Dept. of Mines and Geology at the Univ. of Baal in Switzerland (by authority of the Swiss Govt) announced that this technology is exactly what they hoped it would be...capable of cleaning tons of hazardous waste (now being trucked into Germany and dumped into abandoned mines...but no longer due to "exothermic reactions" caused by this stuff) from rare metals even in microscopic amounts to toxic chemicals. They also said this system has an "immediate $200 million potential" in Switzerland alone in its first year of operation. So you see, technology can help us change the system *from within*... You can learn more about MR3 by visiting their website: http://www.montana.com/mr3 Hope to hear from you and any other Saneteers interesed in recycling toxic waste, industrial sludge, municipal sewerage sludge, harbor sludge, industrial plating rinses, mining tailings... Contact me for questions or comments. David Webb Information Officer Bioponic International ********* >Recently, the teevee show -Beyond 2000- featured a machine built at >M.I.T. This machine super heated contaminated soil with synthetic >"lightening". The end result was chunks of glass that are impervious to >water,chemically inert and well suited to entrapping radioactivity. >Needless to say it was facinting. It was reported that this system will >be able to process one ton of contaminted soil for about fifty >bucks. $50 X (EPA + State Regulators) = $5000/ton ;={ > >Not many miles from the house I live in and the ground I farm, lies >Times Beach. A monument to everything wrong with the way the "system" >works. It doesn't work. Ultimatly, one of the corporations responsible >for widespread contamination was paid a handsome sum to clean up its own >mess. Clean up = spew all over the place by incomplete incinertion and >later by leaching of ashes in landfills. > >Our community could not find within itself the strength of conviction >that the folks around New Bedford, Massachusetts relied on to stop an >errant EPA and their highly illogical plan to incinerate PCB contminated >dirt. Perhaps that community will be among the first to reap the >benefits of this new technology. > >It is too late for this neck of the woods where we now own the dubious >distinction of being exposed to DIE-oxin twice, when once was more than >enough. > >A. > >---Trying my best in a world that is being TRASHED daily--- > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 22:32:29 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA19482; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA17692; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id VAA20071 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id VAA20055 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.clarityconnect.com (mail.clarityconnect.com [206.64.143.5]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id VAA15464 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cramer (206.114.171.50) by mail.clarityconnect.com with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.2); Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:06:07 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971001220038.0071dc5c@clarityconnect.com> X-Sender: cdcramer@clarityconnect.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:00:38 -0400 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Craig Cramer Subject: Re: NEW FREEDOM TO FARM PUBLICATION In-Reply-To: <9710011637.ZM8807@fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 45 At 04:37 PM 10/1/97 -0400, Ray Kimsey wrote: >A Worldwide Web version of the chapter, "Making Sense of Federal >Programs," complete table of contents, and news release about Making >the Most of Freedom to Farm is available online at: > >http://sunsite.unc.edu/farming-connection/farmpoli/features/makesens/home.htm My apologies to anyone who tried to browse the chapter. A balky server prevented me from uploading the finished work Wednesday afternoon. It's there now. Craig Cramer mailto:cdcramer@clarityconnect.com Sustainable Farming Connection -- "Where farmers find and share information." http://sunsite.unc.edu/farming-connection "The water will never clear up 'til you get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 22:35:54 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA19526; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA18834; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id WAA22035 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:00:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id WAA21978 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nwark.nwark.com (nwark.nwark.com [206.97.227.1]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id WAA15742 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pjf.ppp (port16.nwark.com [206.97.227.116]) by nwark.nwark.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA16724; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:59:16 -0500 Message-ID: <34330014.673A@nwark.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 20:59:48 -0500 From: Philip Fredericks Reply-To: pjf@nwark.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu CC: wastenot list Subject: Re: questions about co-mingled compost testing and then some... References: <3431FC70.2DD2@1stnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 46 Susan K. Snow wrote: > > Does anyone know when in the analysis of co-mingled compost takes > place? Is it before or after the batteries and other materials in the > mix begin to corrode? The answer is YES, both before and after. > > I've learned that a serious problem with analytical data from MSW > compost is that it does not typically pick up these heavy metal levels > in the analysis because the batteries are often still intact when the > test is done, only to decompose over time and leak their toxic contents > years later. Who did you learn this from? > > It is my understanding that mixed waste composting basically takes the > commingled solid waste stream, commercial and residential, and processes > it into smaller particles that are subsequently composted. Yes, this is my understanding too. This is > contrasted with source-separated composting which takes yard trimmings, > food scraps, non-recycled paper, and commercial organics before they are > commingled. And more often than not, those people working with these products, create a stinking mess, along with winged vermin and RATS(or at least that's what they say on the WASTE list). They also say that the problem can be solved by releasing Gehkos in the vicinity to eat the flies and remove the food so the rats will have nothing to eat. You know what? Most don't even test for plant or animal pathogens, chemical sprays that can be on the green waste and food. At best, most of what we've seen has been closer to a mulch than compost. > > Mixed solid waste is high in paper and generally very dry, so that many > companies use sewage sludge to provide moisture and nitrogen. We also use septage, carwash trap waste with their solvents, fats, oils and greases, petroleum sludge, landfill leachate and drinking water from the hydrant. > > Again, it is my understanding that hammermilling systems shred plastics, > batteries, and such into little bits that may ultimately contaminate the > compost. We fully agree that hammermills are guilty of this nefarious act. Other grinders however, are quite up to the task. Other systems, I've heard tell, twist plastics into tiny > toothpick-like bits. And, there are companies that sell dyes to color > compost the desirable dark brown or black color characteristic of earth > rich in organic matter. This is a great example of people that don't know how to compost. If you've got a machine though that twists plastic into toothpicks, this may be the beginning of a REAL recycling market! > > Mixed waste composting will still have the full gamut of heavy metals, > particularly metals from household batteries such as mercury, lead, > nickel, cadmium, and zinc. This is a good point that we would like to see you expound upon. Since last July, you have of course been reviewing and verifying test protocol, data, and samples for independent testing. We are looking forward to your posting to all lists the results of your study. I understand that PCB levels in mixed waste > compost are often over 10 PPM as well, of which I and many states have > concerns with levels over 1 PPM. What did you think of our test results using MSW and landfill leachate that showed NONE DETECTED for ALL PCB isomers at ppb? Moreover, the USEPA does not regulate > mixed waste compost! If this is so, how come all states refer to existing standards set by the EPA? I know there is no written regulation but in the 17 states we've been involved with, most of which have no composting regs of their own, they all follow multiple EPA standards. May I submit to you in REAL WORLD time and order, that mixed waste/sludge composting, is regulated more than landfills, incineraters and land applied sludges. You see, with no written regs, they apply ALL the regs that govern the above to composting. > > The fact is that household batteries are in mixed waste, and that they > are concentrated into a mixed waste compost. It is also a fact that > they are high in heavy metals, and that if they are not removed, they > contaminate the compost to levels far in excess of even the most liberal > guidelines, much less the EPA 503 sludge rules which are liberal > compared with those in the Netherlands and Germany. Anxiously awaiting your post to the list after you finish your review of compost made from MSW/sludge/landfill leachate. We would like your fair and unbiased opinion as to how it stacks up against the standards you mentioned above. > > We have learned from the Seattle Times series how hazardous wastes > become fertilizer and the consequences of this action to farmers health, > the health of the fields, and grazing animals. > http://www.seattletimes.com/todaysnews/browse/html97/fert_070397.html What does this have to do with composting???? If you test the sludge on the front side, and it has been blessed for direct land application, I'm not sure I follow your concerns about further processing in order to meet or exceed the same standards you listed above. > > How will the recycling of industrial or municipal solid waste into > compost affect the health of farmers and their families, communities > down wind, especially when dust blows or fields are burned, such as with > sugar cane? In the material that was offered to you, did you check directly with the Health Depts who tested for airborn pathogens, heavy metals and all organic compounds on the RCRA list? If so, please report to everyone what you found. > > Will the soil to dust to lungs or hands to mouth series poison our > children, ourselves, as well as the food chain? The Center for Disease Control can answer this question for you. You may be surprised to learn that there are more pathogens on a circulated dime, than are found in a quality compost operation. Don't tell me you wash your money before you give it to the kids to buy candy? Does this sustain > agriculture or sustain disposal of such materials? An unequivocal YES! Both. Isn't it wonderful to be able to clean up the waste and grow food at the same time! With >6% nationwide recycling, it's great to be able to clean it up well below any regulatory limits, while at the same time detoxifying the organics to be returned to the earth from where they came. It just doesn't make sense to me to bury them, burn them or spread them partially processed over the ground. Standards based on science certainly need to play a fact in all regulations and we agree they need to be tightened up. Standards, definitions, and process and product certification is what we should all be working for. You can't solve the problem with emotion, opinion and the Chicken Little syndrome when you get bopped on the head with an acorn, running and telling everyone you can " THE SKY IS FALLING"!! My concerns and > others have been echoed in The Case for Caution. > http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/PDFS/PDFS.html We share the same concerns, but Cornell's report is not based on Zero Tolerance. How do the test results that you are reviewing compare with the Cornell concerns? Phil Fredericks http://www.uark.edu/~ecti/ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 23:21:39 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA20106; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA29659; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:16:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id WAA22780 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:49:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id WAA22726 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nwark.nwark.com (nwark.nwark.com [206.97.227.1]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id WAA17012 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pjf.ppp (port16.nwark.com [206.97.227.116]) by nwark.nwark.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA18505; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:49:20 -0500 Message-ID: <34330BCF.11C8@nwark.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 21:49:51 -0500 From: Philip Fredericks Reply-To: pjf@nwark.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu CC: wastenot list Subject: Re: Farmer Survey References: <34325DAB.7C45@1stnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 47 Susan K. Snow wrote: > > Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:11:35 -0400 > Mr. Clarence W. Walker of Indust., Commercial, Muni., and Agri. Waste > Processing Systems & Eqpt. wrote: > > > Bottom line...how do we convert organics that would otherwise be > > landfilled into a smouldering pathogen/carcinogen breeding anaerobic > > monutainous eyesore or burned? > [snip] > > Is organic material such yard and garden wastes, animal manures, > agricultural vegetation linked to cancer? Not from what I can detect > from the International Agency for the Research of Cancer. The answer to your question is YES. If you're having trouble detecting FACT , pull a sample of compost from your innocuous yard and garden waste from the bottom of the stacked pile(18 in. in) and have it tested for phenolic compounds which are Class 1 carcinogens at <1ppm. Please report your findings to the list. While you talk about lead from batteries, please also inform us, of how you remove all of the garden chemicals from those gardens and lawn wastes of those who chose to use them. I do believe that most are carcinogenic. How many green waste composters even test for the presence of these compounds? > > However, manmade chemicals--work place asbestos, solvents, chemicals in > printing inks, pesticides, some chemicals that may be in fertilizers, > diesel and petroleum products, some cleaning agents, properties of > ethylene glycol ethers, toxic metals, including beryllium, radiation, > and numerous other human created substances are among the suspects. > http://www.iarc.fr/monoeval/allmonos.htm Thanks for giving us humans credit for the metals and compounds listed above. All this time I thought that they occured naturally and were the gift of a superior being. > > These and other manmade chemical are highly concentrated in municipal > solid waste and therefore, landfill leachate. > http://www.envirolink.org/pubs/rachel/rhwn090a.htm > They may be attached to the organic fraction of the waste stream, such > as printing inks are attached to paper or mixed in with organic matter > in or when sewage sludge is composted. After reading this I can only ask one question. Where and in what discipline did you receive your degree? > > Does composting destroy or temporarily dilute these fractions? When they > are continually laid down and ultimately tilled into the soil, are they > not accumulative? Why are you asking this question? If you already know the answer, state your source and share it with us. > > Turning composted vegetation and manures into the soil has been > practiced by man and nature since time began. However, mixing composted > mixed waste is more recent. This apparently occurs due to the public's > acceptance of composting sorted materials, and their opposition to > incinerators, landfills, and dumping or burning of sewage sludge. Just a small lesson from history: At the turn of the century, mine ores and chemicals were being open dumped just outside the city limits, on top of the ground. These same metals and compounds are used in consumer products today. Little or no traces of pollution can be found today, from these old sites. Looks like the microbial attack in an aerobic environment over a long period of time cleaned up the site. Do you suppose that the time frame could be shortened given the right microbes, under the right conditions? We do know that ANAEROBIC landfill conditions hinder the process. Kinda like anaerobic compost curing. > > [snip] > > Making high quality, safe compost to rigid standards is part one..part > two is achieved when the organics are returned to the soil > [snip] > > and GETTING THE PRODUCT TO THE USERS What did we lose here between the SNIPS? I have old timers disease and can't remember the part you chose to delete. > > Why are the U.S.EPA standards for sewage sludge not as rigid as the > German or Dutch standards? What would it matter? Your postings for ZERO Tolerance don't fit either. Is this because the Dutch regulations would > more than likely eliminate mixed waste composting as an industry? I know of one company that it wouldn't. > > It is not in my family's best interest that mixed waste compost be > spread on farms or private and public lands. The reason many Americans > are turning to certified organics is because of the concern of toxic > substances being added during growing and processing. How sustainable is > spreading composted toxics onto the soils, crops? We say, bad compost full of nasty toxics and heavy metals, BOOOOO!!!! We say, safe, quality compost no matter what the source, YEAAAH!!! > > BTW, I strongly recommend and participate in composting sorted organic > materials including vegetation (and food wastes) and animal manures. > Wherever composted materials have been added to my soil, the soil has > become rich and dark in the color due to added humus, and earth worms > are multiplying. This is most admirable. Come to Arkansas and look at the worms frolicing and having babies in mixed solid waste compost. Phil Fredericks http://www.uark.edu/~ecti/ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 23:24:41 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA20136; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA00415; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id WAA29353 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id WAA29339 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id WAA17090 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s02.term1.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.132]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA07460; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971001195803.007af770@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 19:58:03 -0700 To: Diane Cooner , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: re: smallfarm-mg In-Reply-To: <3432890B.4A9E@wclynx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 48 At 10:31 AM 10/1/97 -0700, Diane Cooner wrote: >In Rich Molini's post on this thread, he makes the comment that >entrepreneurs such as certifying agencies, inspector trainers and >consultants have all jumped on the band wagon to suck money out of small >organic farmers. I don't see that it is quite that way. Before all of these people were sucking money out of small organic farmers but at lest it was voluntary now small organic farmers will be forced to pay inspector,certifying agencies etc. the key word is small organic farmers and forced. >>From my view, this movement of growing organically started out small. >CCOF originally had farmers inspecting farmers - for free. To check up on >each other. Because there were some problems with fraud. As the movement >got bigger, everyone got more busy and you couldn't find people to go out >and inspect for free. Consumers demanded the verification, so now the >movement needed to pay people for the inspection work. It got bigger because the organic growers made it bigger not the USDA and now a whole set of folks are now making a living and the small organic farmer is paying for all of them. Their schooling , their gas,their income,their motel rooms their time reading reports,this computers , their time driving down and back again and on and on and on. we are paying .all this money to people to prove what we already know about ourselves that we are growing organic. If the consumer demanded verification let them pay for it I know I am organic. and should not be forced to pay for their perinoia. You want to test my crop test it just don't make me pay for the test. that is a tax I do not deserve. >I agree with Rich that patronizing small local farmers is best. But what >happens in the meantime, while those farmers are building up their local >markets? We have had lots of small farmers in our area drop out of CCOF >because they no longer needed "the stinking badges" to prove to their >customers that they were doing what they said they were doing. So they no >longer need the service. Wrong again. it was because they did not want to give up their rights and their freedom for stinking badges. We had lots of folks drop out of our chapter but it was not for reasons you state it was because CCOF along with others were making the word organic a political football. I know why most of my chapter stop being CCOF it was because the certifiers we have been supporting for years sold out our word "organic" to the state and now to the Feds. We trusted them with our life of living and they sold us out. Most farmers don't want to go through the political BS just to prove we are doing the right we know and a lot of us can not afford this extra tax that keeps growing and growing. It was one thing when we volunteer to pay these folks now they are making it law that we must pay them or we cannot tell folks we are organic. Diane that whole inspector thing you are into is built on the backs of the small farmer and it is wrong to lay it all on us.I can not afford to pay for my own gas let alone pay for yours.And the fact that you voted for full pay while your driving showes me it is greed greed greed. And I should not have to pay one extra cent to farm and sell organic. The inspectors are the biggest drain of all Diane .They suck up the most. They invented a new occupation that sucks money out of organic growers by force. . The inspectors suck up the most of our moneys and they want even more. I have seen inspections rise in cost again and again and we can do nothing but pay and now they are making it a law that we must pay if we want to stay in bussiness. So the inspectors vote to raise their pay and the certifier raises their cost and the local chapter raises their cost and we the organic grower pay pay pay.You worry every time you go to the mail box not knowing who else is going to bleed you dry because you grow and sell organic. Who else is going to want their pound of flesh. They sold our names to the state now we have to pay them every year and the feds are in a room right now deciding what to charge the organic grower after all we are being forced to pay for this whole trip if we can afford it on not. Do we stop inspecting completely? What about >Glacial Ridge? Unfortunately, the problem does seem to lie with large - >large companies have an incentive to commit large fraud for large >dollars. But like Walmart, just because we want it to go away doesn't >mean it's going to. To not continue to police corporate (that magic word) >business, organic or otherwise, has the potential to damage the entire >movement. >Obviously, you can tell that I am involved with the organic inspector >association, and I will put in a plug for them that they are very >dedicated people who are working hard to train very dedicated inspectors >that (again from my view) carry with them the passion for organics, a >love of the planet and sustainability. To pidgeonhole them as >entrepreneurs that want to suck off the system is simply not accurate Sure you see it that way but the poor organic farmer does not see it like that at all. First of all the inspectors just voted their self a raise. they now get full pay for driving to the farmers place. they get full pay to read the report they get all their expenses paid by the poor small farmer. Some organic inspectors are not even organic growers so their heart is not in organic ness they are just supplementing their income bleeding the organic growers. Sure there are some really good guys but Here I am just farming along when the word from the herd come down that now the inspectors just voted themselves a raise and guess what I get to pay for it. Sounds like entrepreneurs that want to suck off the system is very accurat . No fair. Not only are we forced to pay for all this but they can vote them selfs a raise (this is what I mean by political football) every one voting on how much to charge me because I am organic.and charge more any time they like and we eat it. I been doing this for to long to fall for the BS that they are dedicated yeah they use to be but now they are only dedicated to taking my money out of my pocket and putting it in theirs. Just think if an inspector has to drive 400 miles to your small farm for a inspection that may take 1/2 hr. yet you are forced to pay this guy maybe $40 an hour for his drive down and another $40 an hour for the 4 or 8 hour drive back . and the poor small farmer has to pay this persons motel room and the gas and don't for get to pay him for reading that extra paper work we have to do and then the inspection at $40 or so an hour then he charges you $40 an hour for writing his report. etc.and don't forget his meals. yeah sure they are not bleeding the trunips. not much. vote yourselves another inspectors raise after all it is the small organic that will have to pay it. All kind of folks are voting to take money from organic growers it is open season on us after all we farm organic . easy target. >>From my experience, these people care much more than the certifiers. >And, again, I agree, grow, buy, sell local. But don't fault those that >are watchdogs for the macro. >Diane Cooner > The certifiers need new computers and rent and don't forget the local chapter they justed voted another 25$ raise and then there is the state. and soon the feds all paid for by the small organic farmers (forced) . Don't tell me the inspectors care about the organic grower when you guys just raised your driving time to full pay out of my hard earned income. Vote yourself another raise and sending the bill to me. An organic grower should not have to pay one cent extra to farm and sell his organic crop as organic. If I want to volunteer to pay an inspector that is one thing but when the state and Federal government force me to pay what ever these folks want that is a tax for growing and selling organic and we don't deserved to be taxed for doing the right we know. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 1 23:47:15 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA20373; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA05310; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:42:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id XAA08401 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id XAA08348 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nwark.nwark.com (nwark.nwark.com [206.97.227.1]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id XAA17913 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 23:13:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pjf.ppp (port16.nwark.com [206.97.227.116]) by nwark.nwark.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA19514 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:13:30 -0500 Message-ID: <3433117A.1B20@nwark.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:14:02 -0500 From: Philip Fredericks Reply-To: pjf@nwark.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: questions about co-mingled compost testing and then some... References: <3431FC70.2DD2@1stnet.com> <34330014.673A@nwark.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 49 > > Susan K. Snow wrote: > > > > Does anyone know when in the analysis of co-mingled compost takes > > place? Is it before or after the batteries and other materials in the > > mix begin to corrode? > > The answer is YES, both before and after. > > > > I've learned that a serious problem with analytical data from MSW > > compost is that it does not typically pick up these heavy metal levels > > in the analysis because the batteries are often still intact when the > > test is done, only to decompose over time and leak their toxic contents > > years later. > > Who did you learn this from? > > > > It is my understanding that mixed waste composting basically takes the > > commingled solid waste stream, commercial and residential, and processes > > it into smaller particles that are subsequently composted. > > Yes, this is my understanding too. > > This is > > contrasted with source-separated composting which takes yard trimmings, > > food scraps, non-recycled paper, and commercial organics before they are > > commingled. > > And more often than not, those people working with these products, > create a stinking mess, along with winged vermin and RATS(or at least > that's what they say on the WASTE list). They also say that the problem > can be solved by releasing Gehkos in the vicinity to eat the flies and > remove the food so the rats will have nothing to eat. You know what? > Most don't even test for plant or animal pathogens, chemical sprays that > can be on the green waste and food. At best, most of what we've seen has > been closer to a mulch than compost. > > > > Mixed solid waste is high in paper and generally very dry, so that many > > companies use sewage sludge to provide moisture and nitrogen. > > We also use septage, carwash trap waste with their solvents, fats, oils > and greases, petroleum sludge, landfill leachate and drinking water from > the hydrant. > > > > Again, it is my understanding that hammermilling systems shred plastics, > > batteries, and such into little bits that may ultimately contaminate the > > compost. > > We fully agree that hammermills are guilty of this nefarious act. Other > grinders however, are quite up to the task. > > Other systems, I've heard tell, twist plastics into tiny > > toothpick-like bits. And, there are companies that sell dyes to color > > compost the desirable dark brown or black color characteristic of earth > > rich in organic matter. > > This is a great example of people that don't know how to compost. If > you've got a machine though that twists plastic into toothpicks, this > may be the beginning of a REAL recycling market! > > > > Mixed waste composting will still have the full gamut of heavy metals, > > particularly metals from household batteries such as mercury, lead, > > nickel, cadmium, and zinc. > > This is a good point that we would like to see you expound upon. Since > last July, you have of course been reviewing and verifying test > protocol, data, and samples for independent testing. We are looking > forward to your posting to all lists the results of your study. > > I understand that PCB levels in mixed waste > > compost are often over 10 PPM as well, of which I and many states have > > concerns with levels over 1 PPM. > > What did you think of our test results using MSW and landfill leachate > that showed NONE DETECTED for ALL PCB isomers at ppb? > > Moreover, the USEPA does not regulate > > mixed waste compost! > > If this is so, how come all states refer to existing standards set by > the EPA? I know there is no written regulation but in the 17 states > we've been involved with, most of which have no composting regs of their > own, they all follow multiple EPA standards. May I submit to you in REAL > WORLD time and order, that mixed waste/sludge composting, is regulated > more than landfills, incineraters and land applied sludges. You see, > with no written regs, they apply ALL the regs that govern the above to > composting. > > > > The fact is that household batteries are in mixed waste, and that they > > are concentrated into a mixed waste compost. It is also a fact that > > they are high in heavy metals, and that if they are not removed, they > > contaminate the compost to levels far in excess of even the most liberal > > guidelines, much less the EPA 503 sludge rules which are liberal > > compared with those in the Netherlands and Germany. > > Anxiously awaiting your post to the list after you finish your review of > compost made from MSW/sludge/landfill leachate. We would like your fair > and unbiased opinion as to how it stacks up against the standards you > mentioned above. > > > > We have learned from the Seattle Times series how hazardous wastes > > become fertilizer and the consequences of this action to farmers health, > > the health of the fields, and grazing animals. > > http://www.seattletimes.com/todaysnews/browse/html97/fert_070397.html > > What does this have to do with composting???? If you test the sludge on > the front side, and it has been blessed for direct land application, I'm > not sure I follow your concerns about further processing in order to > meet or exceed the same standards you listed above. > > > > How will the recycling of industrial or municipal solid waste into > > compost affect the health of farmers and their families, communities > > down wind, especially when dust blows or fields are burned, such as with > > sugar cane? > > In the material that was offered to you, did you check directly with the > Health Depts who tested for airborn pathogens, heavy metals and all > organic compounds on the RCRA list? If so, please report to everyone > what you found. > > > > Will the soil to dust to lungs or hands to mouth series poison our > > children, ourselves, as well as the food chain? > > The Center for Disease Control can answer this question for you. You may > be surprised to learn that there are more pathogens on a circulated > dime, than are found in a quality compost operation. Don't tell me you > wash your money before you give it to the kids to buy candy? > > Does this sustain > > agriculture or sustain disposal of such materials? > > An unequivocal YES! Both. Isn't it wonderful to be able to clean up the > waste and grow food at the same time! With >6% nationwide recycling, > it's great to be able to clean it up well below any regulatory limits, > while at the same time detoxifying the organics to be returned to the > earth from where they came. It just doesn't make sense to me to bury > them, burn them or spread them partially processed over the ground. > Standards based on science certainly need to play a fact in all > regulations and we agree they need to be tightened up. Standards, > definitions, and process and product certification is what we should all > be working for. You can't solve the problem with emotion, opinion and > the Chicken Little syndrome when you get bopped on the head with an > acorn, running and telling everyone you can " THE SKY IS FALLING"!! > > My concerns and > > others have been echoed in The Case for Caution. > > http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/PDFS/PDFS.html > > We share the same concerns, but Cornell's report is not based on Zero > Tolerance. How do the test results that you are reviewing compare with > the Cornell concerns? > > Phil Fredericks > http://www.uark.edu/~ecti/ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 2 03:43:50 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id DAA25109; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 03:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id DAA15352; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 03:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id DAA07855 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 03:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id DAA07799 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 03:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.1stnet.com (root@mail1.1stnet.com [206.104.32.40]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id DAA23928 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 03:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bruce (ppp24.1stnet.com [206.104.46.24]) by dancer.1stnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA07798; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:13:27 -0500 Message-ID: <34334705.7491@1stnet.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 02:03:01 -0500 From: "Susan K. Snow" Reply-To: sksnow@1stnet.com Organization: Pollution Solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John A. Hendrickson" CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re:Help: rashes caused by handling produce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 50 John, There are a number of insecticides and fungicides (and the so-called inert ingredients within) that have skin irritating qualities, according to the Pesticide Handbook. http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu/~fairsweb/text/pp/15053.html Another interesting article is by Joel Grossman, "Dangers of Household Pesticides," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, Vol. 103, No. 6 (June 1995). http://www.envirolink.org/pubs/rachel/ehbr01.htm Susan Snow ---------- On Saturday, 30 August, John A. Hendrickson wrote: > The produce manager at a food cooperative in Madison, Wisconsin is > desperately trying to find out why she and many of her staff have > been suffering from serious rashes on their hands and arms over the > past few years or more. They believe they've narrowed it down to > their handling of either watermelons or celery that is not certified > organic (i.e., "commercial"). They're concerned about long-term > effects; some are already left with scars from the rash. Does > anyone out there have any information on this? Is this common in > produce retail? I'll forward her your replies, thankyou. > > -John > > John Hendrickson > Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems > University of Wisconsin-Madison > 1450 Linden Drive, Room 146 > Madison, WI 53706 > jhendric@facstaff.wisc.edu > (608) 265-3704 > FAX (608) 265-3020 > http://www.wisc.edu/cias To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 2 17:55:36 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA19963; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17046; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA08490 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA08483 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id RAA29440 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA17316; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:05:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:05:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Andy Clark X-Sender: aclark@cliff To: sanet-mg Subject: W.K. Kellogg Grant Initiative Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 51 For more information, contact W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Food Systems/Rural Development, One Michigan Ave East, Battle Creek, MI 49017-4058; web: www.wkkf.org; telephone: 616- 968-1611; fax: 616-968-0413. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:19:17 GMT From: owner-smallfarm@reeusda.gov Managing Information with Rural America =============================== The W.K. Kellogg Foundation has announced its new technology-oriented grantmaking initiative, "Managing Information with Rural America" (MIRA). The goals of the program include helping communities build their development capacity, crafting a shared development vision, and encouraging diverse groups of people to work together in new ways. "Rural communities have reservoirs of great strength, tenacity, and civic commitment. We want to draw upon these reservoirs... to meet the tides of change using one of today's primary tools: information systems and electronic communications." The program, to operate over 5 years, and comprises three interdependent grant categories: clusters of community teams, support organizations and policy organizations. The initiative centers on the clusters, of which five will be selected per year over the next 3 years. Community Clusters are composed of six to ten teams forming a multicount collaboration. The entire collaboration will receive a pool of funds from which each team can receive mini-grants to pursue a project of its own design. Deadline is December 30, 1997; $200,000. "Support Organizations" are community-based organizations in the locale of the Community Clusters. Support Organizations typically provide training, technical assistance, leadership development or civic participation and include groups that work in locating economic opportunity and access to capital. Deadline is April 15, 1998; $250,000 within each cluster region. "Policy Organizations" will work with selected Community Clusters to understand policy and develop issues pertinent to that region. Policy Organizations will use technology to serve rural communities and to promote a two-way exchange of information. First year funding will go to three or four national organizations, and in subsequent years to local and regional organizations nearer to the Cluster grantees. Deadline is November 30, 1997; $150,000 - $250,000. For more information, contact W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Food Systems/Rural Development, One Michigan Ave East, Battle Creek, MI 49017-4058; web: www.wkkf.org; telephone: 616- 968-1611; fax: 616-968-0413. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 2 19:42:17 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA22822; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:42:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA10633; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id TAA22451 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id TAA22405 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from green.indy.net (green.indy.net [199.3.65.18]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id TAA04258 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from indy1.indy.net (root@indy1.indy.net [199.3.65.5]) by green.indy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA02895; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:08:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (ip75-242.ts.indy.net [199.3.75.242]) by indy1.indy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA09762; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:08:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34341B61.6E83@indy.net> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:08:33 -0500 From: Rich Molini Reply-To: richmo@indy.net Organization: IndyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-IndyNet (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Webb CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ashley, Clarence, Susan et al References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 52 David Webb wrote: > > Dear Saneteers: > > Good old American know-how is back in action. Toxic waste dumps, > industrial wastes, sludge, mining tailings...you name it...there is now a > technology to clean it all up regardless of how nasty it is. > > Next week, our company, Bioponic International, will be acquiring another > company, MR3, Inc., which has developed a state-of-the-art technology > making it possible to extract by electrochemical processing any selected > element from soil thus rendering *clean* whatever hazardous toxic soil or > water that is processed through this system. The by-products are > completely non-hazardous fertilizer and water purification chemicals. > > Recently scientists and engineers from the Dept. of Mines and Geology at > the Univ. of Baal in Switzerland (by authority of the Swiss Govt) announced > that this technology is exactly what they hoped it would be...capable of > cleaning tons of hazardous waste (now being trucked into Germany and dumped > into abandoned mines...but no longer due to "exothermic reactions" caused > by this stuff) from rare metals even in microscopic amounts to toxic > chemicals. They also said this system has an "immediate $200 million > potential" in Switzerland alone in its first year of operation. > > So you see, technology can help us change the system *from within*... > > You can learn more about MR3 by visiting their website: > http://www.montana.com/mr3 > > Hope to hear from you and any other Saneteers interesed in recycling toxic > waste, industrial sludge, municipal sewerage sludge, harbor sludge, > industrial plating rinses, mining tailings... > > Contact me for questions or comments. > > David Webb > Information Officer > Bioponic International > > ********* > >Recently, the teevee show -Beyond 2000- featured a machine built at > >M.I.T. This machine super heated contaminated soil with synthetic > >"lightening". The end result was chunks of glass that are impervious to > >water,chemically inert and well suited to entrapping radioactivity. > >Needless to say it was facinting. It was reported that this system will > >be able to process one ton of contaminted soil for about fifty > >bucks. $50 X (EPA + State Regulators) = $5000/ton ;={ > > > >Not many miles from the house I live in and the ground I farm, lies > >Times Beach. A monument to everything wrong with the way the "system" > >works. It doesn't work. Ultimatly, one of the corporations responsible > >for widespread contamination was paid a handsome sum to clean up its own > >mess. Clean up = spew all over the place by incomplete incinertion and > >later by leaching of ashes in landfills. > > > >Our community could not find within itself the strength of conviction > >that the folks around New Bedford, Massachusetts relied on to stop an > >errant EPA and their highly illogical plan to incinerate PCB contminated > >dirt. Perhaps that community will be among the first to reap the > >benefits of this new technology. > > > >It is too late for this neck of the woods where we now own the dubious > >distinction of being exposed to DIE-oxin twice, when once was more than > >enough. > > > >A. > > > >---Trying my best in a world that is being TRASHED daily--- > > > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". David, No offense but it sounds like hokus-pokus to me. The best minds in remedial technologies can tell you there is absolutely no magic bullet quick fix for any type or quantity of hazardous waste/substances cleanup. When we allow the production of synthetic chemical poisons ( especially those wonderful compounds specifically designed to interrupt life processes) we all are affected and accountable no matter what the major chemical producers would like us to believe. BTW what are "non-hazardous fertilizers" and " water purification chemicals"? That has got to be the answer to your riddle. Write a couple of balanced equations detailing the reactions particular to this method and the techniques employed to magically treat 100 million gallons of TCE contaminated water/soil matrix in a local aquifer. Competent scientist have been attempting to make progress on these and other very complicated problems for 30 years. I wish there was a miracle solution because we wouldn't have to care about toxin production and dispersement and we could concentrate on stopping GMO production and distribution. Rich To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 3 00:14:55 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA00609; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA06866; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:10:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id XAA14545 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 23:40:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id XAA14488 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 23:40:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acme.sb.west.net (root@acme.sb.west.net [205.254.224.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id XAA10994 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 23:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [205.254.241.118] (term5-6.vta.west.net [205.254.241.134]) by acme.sb.west.net (8.8.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21682 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:39:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: colibri@mail.west.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Beth von Gunten Subject: Re: Farming at Risk Because of Growth Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 53 MEBUCKNER@wnpb.wvnet.edu (Marian Buckner) wrote: > Can you help with answers to any of the following? I am gathering >info for a possible small research project. > This proposed project would research bringing in new rural >infrastructure or support services to help make farming continue to be >viable. A few of our agricultural support services have left because >not enough of an agricultural base was left for their particular >business to be profitable. Our rural area is very threatened by >growth, but still holding its own for the time being. > > Here are my questions: >1. Do you know of anyone that has done such a study? Or anyone >researching the area of rural infrastructure and agriculture support >businesses or industries? > >2. Do you know of books or journal articles that discuss this subject? > >3. Do you know of any related experiences in other areas--successful >or unsuccessful? > >4. Please comment on the following ideas I've received from others: > * Attract a county-based storage facility to our new industrial park >(they're looking for high-tech businesses for the most part) that would >process grains on the premises (eg, flour mill or oil extracting >process). > Question: What about nuisance aspects (noise, dust, trucks)? How >does one find out how large an agricultural base is needed for such a >facility to be profitable? > > * Attract farm equipment dealers with a diversified line for both >farmers and suburban customers--lawn and garden, snowmobiles). > Question: Will farm equipment dealers resist this because they want >their farm equipment to be primary? > > *Create a marketing group that could buy and sell blocks of grain from >a number of farmers and lock in on better-priced markets. > Question: Will farmers buy into this? They tend to want to be >independent and act on their own. > >5. Do you have other suggestions for "farmers on the urban edge"? > > Thanks! > >Marian Buckner ________________ Marian, In March 1996 the Regents of the University of California published a study: The Value of Agriculture to Ventura County: An Economic Analysis, sponsored by the Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust, the California State Coastal Conservancy, and the Univertiy of California Hansen Trust. I believe the work as a whole will be of great use to you in your efforts; I know it has been to me in mine. One chapter in particular, Ventura County Agricultural Support Industries, by Michael Moore, Resource Economist, addresses your questions quite directly. I live and work on these issues in Ventura County, just up the coast from Los Angeles, our immediate neighbor to the southeast. Agriculture is still the top industry in Ventura County at a billion dollars a year and growing, but you can imagine the economic pressure to convert the land to other uses. The study is available from Sheri Klittich, administrator of the Hansen Trust, at 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA, 93003; phone 805-645-1472. I wish you all the best in your efforts. If there's anything else I can do to help, please feel free to be in touch. Beth von Gunten Field Representative Community Alliance with Family Farmers POB 1845 Ojai, CA 93024 805-646-1578 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 3 08:38:10 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA06241; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:38:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA28427; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id HAA23253 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id HAA23100 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:50:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x10.boston.juno.com (x10.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.25]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id HAA22520 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:50:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from dan.worley@juno.com) by x10.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id HWU27062; Fri, 03 Oct 1997 07:49:46 EDT To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 05:29:38 AST Subject: Richard Wolfson : Thanks-virus article Message-ID: <19971003.075143.31727.1.DAN.WORLEY@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-7,9-18,20-27,29,31-34,36,38-39,41,43-48,50-60, 62-65,67-75,77-84,86,88-127 From: dan.worley@juno.com (Daniel D. Worley) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 54 --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Wolfson To: info@natural-law.ca Subject: Thanks-virus article Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:06:39 -0400 Message-ID: The Danger of Virus-Resistant Crops, by Joe Cummins, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario Virus-resistant crops are becoming a mainstay in the biotechnology industry. These crops incorporate foreign virus genes, which are genetically engineered into the plants, for the purpose of producing resistance to the virus. For example, crookneck squash with engineered virus resistance has been marketed in the United States--much of that product is marketed as baby food. US Permits to grow virus resistant beets, cucumber, lettuce, melon, pepper, potato, sunflower, tomato and watermelon have been granted or are pending, even though laboratory experiments showed that they could potentially give rise to new viruses-- deadlier than the viruses that the crops are being protected from! Threefold Hazard There are three kinds of hazards associated with the virus resistant crops, which incorporate foreign virus genes: recombination, transcapsidation and synergism. * Recombination is the scrambling of virus genes to create new gene combinations, some of which can give rise to deadlier viruses. Laboratory experiments showed that tobacco plants engineered with a virus gene created new virus strains by recombination when infected with a virus. With virus-resistant crops soon to be released on such a huge scale, there is a very high probability that super viruses will be created by recombination. * Transcapsidation happens when the virus "coat" from the plant cell is taken up and used by an invading virus. The transcapsidated virus could have an enhanced infection and extended range of hosts to infect. * In synergism, the virus gene in the plant cell potentiates the effect of the incoming virus. This may be manifest in more severe disease symptoms or in the increased concentration of virus particles in the cells. Recombination is the most threatening of the three effects because recombination can produce a host of new virus diseases and create viruses capable of destroying a whole crop or many crops. Professional Concern In 1993 the Union of Concerned Scientists called for a moratorium on commercialization of virus resistant crops until a stronger risk assessment program was introduced by the government. The Union's proposal was ignored by government regulators. The virus resistant crops are not being monitored for the production of new plant viruses. Any new virus problem from the use of transgenic crops would be detected by farmers, seed producers, and scientists as new virus disease. It is likely that such detection would take place too late to deal with a strong disease producing virus. For example, a super virus could begin with the introduction of a crop such as potato bearing a "movement" gene to provide protection against virus. Recombination with a previously immobile virus might yield a superior, highly infectious virus that in one season could infect most seed stock. By the following season, most potato production would have been eliminated or greatly diminished in North America. The marketing of virus resistant crops bearing copies of virus genes in each cell has begun. The number of biotech foods in general in this country is rising steadily, in spite of concerns of very serious risks. As consumers, we need to let our governments and local supermarket managers know that we will not tolerate unlabeled genetically engineered foods. We deserve the freedom to make an informed choice about what we put on our kitchen tables every day. Visit with your supermarket manager soon. Support organic growers across the country with your produce purchases. And write your concerns to both: Hon Alan Rock, Minister of Health ((Fax 613-427-4276) Hon Lyle Vanclief, Minister of Agriculture (Fax: 613-996-8652) House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 (no postage necessary) References: Greene, A. and Allison, R. 1994 Science 263, 1423-5 Wuethrich, B. 1994 New Scientist 2April page15 Robinson, D. 1996 Transgenic Research 5, 359-62 Wintermantel, W. and Schoelz, J. 1996 Virology 223, 156-64 ISB/NBIAP News Reports Jan.1996, Aug.1996, April 1997 _________________________________________________________ Richard Wolfson, PhD Campaign for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods Natural Law Party, 500 Wilbrod Street Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2 Tel. 613-565-8517 Fax. 613-565-1596 email: rwolfson@concentric.net Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html contains more information on genetic engineering. To receive regular news on genetic engineering and this campaign, please send an email message with 'subscribe GE' in the subject line to rwolfson@concentric.net To unsubscribe, please send the message 'unsubscribe GE' __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ --------- End forwarded message ---------- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 3 09:30:16 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA06868; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA09250; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id IAA05262 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id IAA05217 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:59:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emerald.tufts.edu (pmdf@emerald.tufts.edu [130.64.1.16]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id IAA25356 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:59:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by emerald.tufts.edu (PMDF V5.1-8 #23568) with SMTP id <0EHH00D0183866@emerald.tufts.edu> for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 08:59:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Molly Anderson Subject: Food Systems Teaching Job To: san Cc: SAED-SHARE-L@cornell.edu Reply-to: Molly Anderson Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 55 JOB ANNOUNCEMENT Visiting Professor of Agriculture, Food and Environment School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University Medford, Massachusetts The Agriculture, Food and Environment (AFE) Program will hire a faculty member from December 1997 through August 1998 to teach, work with graduate students, and establish an Internship Collaborative. This position includes excellent benefits and compensation between $37,000 and $42,000, depending on qualifications. This is a nine-month position; the starting date is somewhat flexible but must be no later than January 1, 1998. The School of Nutrition Science and Policy brings together biomedical, social, political and behavioral scientists to conduct research, educational and community service programs to improve the nutritional health and well-being of people throughout the world. The AFE Program administers degree-granting programs at the M.S. and Ph.D. levels, research, and community service projects dealing with domestic and international problems and alternatives to current food-supply systems. Particular areas of interest include agriculture in and near cities, local food systems, and consumer education. Qualifications: * earned doctorate in environmental or social policy, planning, nutrition, social sciences or related field with an emphasis on food systems, agriculture or environmental problems. ABD doctoral candidates may be considered. * university teaching experience * (Preferred) experience with data-base construction and management; ability to use and evaluate computer-based information technology Duties: * Prepare and teach one graduate-level course during the spring 1998 semester on food systems analysis and the interrelationships of food supply mechanisms, environmental quality, and socioeconomic trends. The applicant should be able to teach how to analyze commodity pathways, assess needs and resources relevant to the food system in particular communities, and develop policy recommendations. * Contribute to other occasional teaching activities of the SNSP, such as seminar series, guest lecturing, and workshops. * Supervise up to 5 AFE directed-study projects during the spring semester. * Coordinate internship advising for AFE students. * Develop the Sustainable Food Systems Internship Collaborative, in cooperation with the AFE Program Director, to match students with suitable organizations. This will include building a data-base, working with organizational participants to negotiate long-term arrangements, seeking additional funds, and organizing at least one participants' meeting. The Internship Collaborative work is expected to require four-five months, with most effort concentrated in June-August. Please send a C.V., cover letter, and sample of your publications or other professional work by November 17 to Molly Anderson, AFE Program Director, School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155-7028. Please direct inquiries about this position to Dr. Anderson at manderso@tufts.edu. Additional information about the School of Nutrition Science and Policy is available at http://www.tufts.edu/nutrition. Tufts is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Members of groups historically under-represented in academia are encouraged to apply. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 3 10:01:39 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA08282; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA15624; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:56:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id JAA20595 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id JAA20586 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from daisy.snet.net (mail.snet.net [204.60.7.83]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id JAA26702 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 204.60.15.212 (nwhn02-sh12-port212.snet.net [204.60.15.212]) by daisy.snet.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/SNET-1.5) with SMTP id JAA23011 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3434660D.32B0@snet.net> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 09:27:09 +0600 From: Bill and Suzanne Duesing Reply-To: bduesing@snet.net Organization: Solar Farm Education X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Two Visions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 56 Living on the Earth, October 3, 1997: Two Visions Two distinctly different visions for the future of our food system have emerged: one is industrial, the other is ecological. The industrial paradigm urges society to amplify research and the application of intensive, high-input technologies for growing, processing and marketing food in order to feed an expanding human population. Proponents of the ecological paradigm for our food system believe that if the human species is to survive, the work of feeding ourselves must be incorporated into the ³larger task of restoring the health of local ecosystems² and communities. They ³suggest that this requires not only a redesign of farming methods, but also of the entire food and agriculture system.²* Producing and preparing food should become an integral part of our lives. The basics of a food system are really quite simple. Soil supports plants which use sunlight to turn air and water into delicious things to eat. Animals turn some of the plants into other good food. Meals are prepared and eaten. In the ecological model, the plants, animals and eaters share the same ecosystem. Wastes from one species nourish others by way of nature¹s elegant cycles. Growing and preparing food are integral to the culture, education, joy and the spirit of each community. While home, school and community gardens are the most important elements of an ecological food system, community-supported-agriculture projects, farmers markets, organic farms, as well as small and part-time farms (especially in urban and suburban areas) are also critical. All of these human-scale endeavors are expanding steadily here in the US and around the world. Grassroots organizations believe that these elements help restore the health not only of people and local ecosystems, but of rural and urban communities, as well. The approach of the industrial food system is very different. This system disconnects people from direct experience in producing food and disconnects food production from the elegant natural cycles that allow ecosystems to function. Instead it creates concentration of ownership, extremely large-scale monocultures and highly-subsidized facilities which produce, for example, millions of hogs or chickens, millions of pounds of margarine or millions of gallons of herbicide each year. It also tends toward boring, inhumane and oftentimes dangerous employment for its workers. Because food is produced very far from where it is eaten, distribution becomes the most important element in the industrial model. Large agribusinesses use contracts with farmers, vertical integration and other forms of coordination to control the flow of food from ³farm to mouth.² Large chemical, drug, seed and equipment companies take an increasing share of farmers¹ earnings for their high tech, toxic, dangerous, and genetically-engineered inputs. Globalization of all these activities is big right now, with the overriding goal in all cases being higher profits to please investors. While the ecological approach maximizes the use of solar energy, recycles organic wastes and uses non-renewable resources sparingly, the industrial approach voraciously consumes soil, water, packaging materials and energy. In fact, energy from fossil and nuclear sources used for growing, processing, transporting, packaging and marketing has become the most important ingredient in the industrial food system. This system discards farmers and their knowledge as it eliminates locally-adapted plants and animals in favor of laboratory creations. The industrial system is quickly narrowing the diversity of food plants that we eat and the diversity of plant and animal species on Earth. Proponents of the industrial vision would have us forge recklessly ahead on their path, putting all our hopes for future eating into the hands of genetic engineers, large-scale, far-away farms and global food processors. Their record so far is not good. Practitioners of the ecological system strive to involve as many as possible in the rewarding work of feeding themselves. They have found that local, ecological food production nourishes more than bodies. It nourishes spirits and communities, too. This is Bill Duesing, Living on the Earth *This description is adapted from a speech by visionary, North Dakota, organic farmer, Fred Kirschenmann. He is a member of the board of the Center for Respect of Life and Environment and an officer of the World Sustainable Agriculture Association. Contact Fred Kirschenmann through wsaadc@igc.org ©1997 Bill Duesing, Solar Farm Education, Box 135, Stevenson, CT 06491 Bill and Suzanne Duesing operate the Old Solar Farm (raising NOFA/CT certified organic vegetables) and Solar Farm Education (working on urban agriculture projects in New Haven, Bridgeport, Hartford and Norwalk, CT).Their collection of essays Living on the Earth: Eclectic Essays for a Sustainable and Joyful Future is available from Bill Duesing, Box 135, Stevenson, CT 06491 for $14 postpaid. These essays first appeared on WSHU, public radio from Fairfield, CT. New essays are posted weekly at http://www.wshu.org/duesing and those since November 1995 are available there. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 3 11:59:09 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA12090; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA14388; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA03186 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:22:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA03125 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from peak.org (root@PEAK.ORG [198.68.22.17]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA02104 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from midgard-36.PEAK.ORG (midgard-36.PEAK.ORG [198.68.22.100]) by peak.org (8.8.5/8.6.7) with SMTP id IAA11933; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971003083600.20cf14fe@peak.org> X-Sender: draperj@peak.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 08:36:00 To: Beth von Gunten , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Jim Draper Subject: Re: Farming at Risk Because of Growth Cc: wistyr@comp.uark.edu, rmdraper@laplaza.taos.nm.us, jsd@landmarkcalendars.com, ecoulter@aiweb.com, julianna_smith@sunsetdirect.com, mclaine@peak.org In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 57 You've begun an extremely interesting and useful dialog. I hope you keep me (an octogenarian long involved in rural development/recovery issues) on your mailing list(s). --- Jim Draper At 08:39 PM 10/2/97 -0700, Beth von Gunten wrote: >MEBUCKNER@wnpb.wvnet.edu (Marian Buckner) wrote: > >> Can you help with answers to any of the following? I am gathering >>info for a possible small research project. >> This proposed project would research bringing in new rural >>infrastructure or support services to help make farming continue to be >>viable. A few of our agricultural support services have left because >>not enough of an agricultural base was left for their particular >>business to be profitable. Our rural area is very threatened by >>growth, but still holding its own for the time being. >> >> Here are my questions: >>1. Do you know of anyone that has done such a study? Or anyone >>researching the area of rural infrastructure and agriculture support >>businesses or industries? >> >>2. Do you know of books or journal articles that discuss this subject? >> >>3. Do you know of any related experiences in other areas--successful >>or unsuccessful? >> >>4. Please comment on the following ideas I've received from others: >> * Attract a county-based storage facility to our new industrial park >>(they're looking for high-tech businesses for the most part) that would >>process grains on the premises (eg, flour mill or oil extracting >>process). >> Question: What about nuisance aspects (noise, dust, trucks)? How >>does one find out how large an agricultural base is needed for such a >>facility to be profitable? >> >> * Attract farm equipment dealers with a diversified line for both >>farmers and suburban customers--lawn and garden, snowmobiles). >> Question: Will farm equipment dealers resist this because they want >>their farm equipment to be primary? >> >> *Create a marketing group that could buy and sell blocks of grain from >>a number of farmers and lock in on better-priced markets. >> Question: Will farmers buy into this? They tend to want to be >>independent and act on their own. >> >>5. Do you have other suggestions for "farmers on the urban edge"? >> >> Thanks! >> >Marian Buckner >________________ > >Marian, > >In March 1996 the Regents of the University of California published a >study: The Value of Agriculture to Ventura County: An Economic Analysis, >sponsored by the Ventura County Agricultural Land Trust, the California >State Coastal Conservancy, and the Univertiy of California Hansen Trust. I >believe the work as a whole will be of great use to you in your efforts; I >know it has been to me in mine. One chapter in particular, Ventura County >Agricultural Support Industries, by Michael Moore, Resource Economist, >addresses your questions quite directly. > >I live and work on these issues in Ventura County, just up the coast from >Los Angeles, our immediate neighbor to the southeast. Agriculture is still >the top industry in Ventura County at a billion dollars a year and growing, >but you can imagine the economic pressure to convert the land to other >uses. > >The study is available from Sheri Klittich, administrator of the Hansen >Trust, at 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA, 93003; phone 805-645-1472. >I wish you all the best in your efforts. If there's anything else I can do >to help, please feel free to be in touch. > > >Beth von Gunten >Field Representative >Community Alliance with Family Farmers >POB 1845 >Ojai, CA 93024 >805-646-1578 > > > > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 3 15:49:04 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA20549; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA14064; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id PAA27414 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id PAA27398 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from comp.uark.edu (root@comp.uark.edu [130.184.252.197]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id PAA13569 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:24:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ncatark.uark.edu (ncatark.uark.edu [130.184.41.248]) by comp.uark.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18713 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:24:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Unknown ([130.184.41.238]) by ncatark.uark.edu (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id TAA18191 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 19:24:50 GMT Message-Id: <199710031924.TAA18191@ncatark.uark.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Steve Diver" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:13:42 +0000 Subject: EPA's Index of Watershed Indicators Reply-to: steved@ncatark.uark.edu X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 58 SAN-Net'ers, Did ya'll see that brand new web site introduced on C-Span yesterday by Carol Browner, Administrator of EPA? Check it out! EPA's Index of Watershed Indicators http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi/ A really cool feature is the ability to search by zip code, county, city, tribe, school, airports, rivers, lakes, or parks, to find the watershed in your region....and associated data. Locate Your Watershed http://www.epa.gov/surf/surf_search.html -- steved@ncatark.uark.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 3 17:43:22 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA22536; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:43:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA27718; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:38:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA02848 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA02792 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:12:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (lax@darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA18929 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:12:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (lax@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA12748 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:12:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Goodman To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: food safety article (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 59 dr folks. . .this may not exactly fit, but may have interesting consequences for a great many people here and abroad. . .looks suspiciously like a possibility to wield more non-tariff barriers if you ask (cynical ol') me. . . any thoughts? Mike Goodman Geography Department University of Oregon President Wants to Tighten Rules on Imported Produce By JAMES BENNET October 3, 1997 WASHINGTON -- Acting after several outbreaks of disease linked to the burgeoning global trade in produce, President Clinton announced Thursday that he would ask Congress to require federal regulators to ban imports of fruit and vegetables from countries that do not meet American food safety standards. The move, urged by regulators since shortly after Clinton first took office and welcomed Thursday by industry and consumer groups, would empower the Food and Drug Administration to safeguard foreign fruit and vegetables in much the same way that other federal regulators check meat and poultry from overseas. Clinton said that he would ask for more money from Congress next year for the FDA to hire investigators to inspect not just produce, but also foreign farming methods and government safety systems. In a change that might irk some U.S. trading partners, countries that blocked the new FDA inspections would be forbidden to sell fruit and vegetables in the United States, the administration said. "At the time when Americans are eating more and more food from around the globe, we must spare no effort to insure the safety of our food supply from whatever source," Clinton said at a Rose Garden ceremony to announce his proposals Thursday. "Our food safety system is the strongest in the world, and that's how it's going to stay." Imports of produce have increased sharply in recent years, to 38 percent of the fruit consumed by Americans and 12 percent of the vegetables. With those imports, however, have come recent outbreaks of diseases brought across borders by Guatemalan raspberries, Mexican cantaloupes and Thai coconut milk, causing public alarm that might make Congress sympathetic to Clinton's proposals. But American trading partners may eventually choose to protest any ban on their products to the World Trade Organization, much as the United States on Wednesday said it would file a complaint with that organization protesting Japan's stringent test for pesticides on American nectarines, cherries and other fruit. The United States sells twice as much food abroad as it imports. Donna E. Shalala, the secretary of health and human services, said that Clinton would ask for $24 million annually to support the FDA's new international inspections. Another official said that if Congress acts on Clinton's proposal, the FDA would phase in its system for such inspections over the next several years. Thursday, Clinton also directed Shalala and the secretary of agriculture, Dan Glickman, to develop new, voluntary standards within a year for growing, processing, shipping and selling fruit and vegetables. The president said he also expected a report from them within 90 days on how to improve the monitoring of fruit and vegetables grown abroad. Though they backed the president's proposal, consumer and industry groups said that they were anxious about the details in the legislation, which the administration plans to offer next year. "What the president proposed today addresses many of the gaps," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. But, she added, "I would like to have mandatory standards rather than voluntary guidelines" for food manufacturers and handlers. For their part, White House aides predicted that meeting the voluntary guidelines would become an eye-catching industry selling point. A senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that it was hard to predict whether the president's initiative could raise prices of fruit and vegetables. But producers or sellers may have to pass on the costs of any modifications to consumers, he said. The main initiative announced Thursday -- requiring the FDA to bar foods imported from countries with substandard safety systems -- was recommended more than four years ago by David A. Kessler, then the commissioner of food and drugs. Kessler warned then that the nation's food-safety laws, essentially unchanged since 1938, were in "urgent need" of an overhaul. Contaminated food, he noted, kills an estimated 9,000 Americans a year and sickens millions, perhaps tens of millions. It still does. The food-safety system was marked by "enormous inefficiencies," he warned. It still is, according to a federal report published in May. The White House has already moved to institute one of Kessler's central proposals, a scientific system for controlling the risk of disease borne by seafood, meat and poultry. But no such system yet exists for fruit and vegetables, domestic or imported. The White House said Thursday that Clinton has been adopting Kessler's proposals piecemeal, addressing the most urgent needs first. Michael D. McCurry, the White House press secretary, said that Clinton was prompted to tighten monitoring of fruit and vegetables partly by several outbreaks of illness and reporting on the potential hazards by news organizations, including The New York Times. Clinton's move on food safety comes as he is seeking enhanced fast-track authority from Congress to negotiate trade deals. His opponents have charged that such deals lower barriers to food-borne diseases. Some opponents of granting the president fast-track authority -- a set of rules under which trade deals, once negotiated, would have to be voted on quickly and without amendment by Congress -- hailed Clinton's announcement Thursday. "I'm glad the fast-track debate has energized the president to do this," said Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. Brown and 85 other members recently sent Clinton a letter linking food safety and trade pacts. The White House said Clinton did not connect food safety to promoting his trade goals. The senior administration official said that he expected some members of Congress to use the initiative as political cover for voting to give the president greater trade authority. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., who is chairman of the Agriculture Committee, will hold hearings on the initiative next week. The administration consulted with some foreign governments before Thursday's announcement, one administration official said, but still expects criticism from abroad. "There will be some negative reaction in some places, but it won't be the end of the world," he said. Some foreign representatives here worried that Clinton's proposals might be used to create trade barriers. The safety of imported food is "a serious issue coming very fast towards all of us in this new global world," said Ambassador John Biehl of Chile. He called the president's initiative "a good thing as long as it is equal for everyone" and not "used as an artificial barrier to free trade." Administration officials repeatedly said Thursday that there was no evidence that imported fruit and vegetables are less safe than American ones. But there is little data about the relative safety of domestic versus imported food, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta. One percent or less of the actual number of food-borne illnesses are reported, analyzed, identified and successfully traced. While the Department of Agriculture monitors meat and poultry, produced here or abroad, the FDA is charged with safeguarding all other food, including fruit, vegetables, grains and seafood. But, unlike the Agriculture Department, the FDA can now send its investigators abroad only if they are invited, and agency inspections of the imports have dropped to less than half what they were five years ago. If Congress approves the president's proposal, the FDA is expected to hire 100 more investigators, who will examine foreign farming methods and food safety systems. Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From san@nal.usda.gov Thu Oct 2 15:46:22 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA15763; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:46:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA13733; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:41:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id OAA16460 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:52:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id OAA22251 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:52:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13341; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:52:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 14:52:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" X-Sender: san@cliff To: sanet-ad@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: About Majordomo (LONG, but important) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 60 SANetters: As you have seen from a previous message, sanet-mg has been moved from an ALMANAC system to a MAJORDOMO system. While this move is *invisible* to the daily operations of sanet, it does change the way that you, the subscriber, will send commands such as the UNSUBSCRIBE command. THIS IS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT SANET-MG. YOU MAY WANT TO PRINT IT AND/OR SAVE IT. You will need it in the future. This information replaces what you received when you first subscribed to sanet. In addition to my few comments below, I am also forwarding the help file from Majordomo. I retrieved this help message from majordomo, by sending mail to Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with a line saying help in the message body. WE ALL KNOW by now that there is one e-mail address which sends mail to all subscribers, and this has not changed: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu There is another address for all other interactions with the big computer that runs sanet. That big computer is now at majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu So, TO UNSUBSCRIBE from sanet-mg, you now must send a message to: majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu In the BODY of the message, type ONLY: unsubscribe sanet-mg You may wish to subscribe to our digest list (sanet-mg-digest). The digest list stores all posts to sanet-mg and distributes them once per day. If you are already subscribed to sanet, you will need to unsubscribe and resubscribe to the digest. This can be done in one message: Send a message to: majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu In the BODY of the message type: unsubscribe sanet-mg subscribe sanet-mg-digest PLEASE read, print, save the help message below. If you have any question, feel free to contact me directly. Andy Clark, Ph.D. SAN Coordinator c/o AFSIC, Room 304 National Agricultural Library 10301 Baltimore Ave. Beltsville, MD 20705-2351 PH: 301-504-6425 FAX: 301-504-6409 san@nal.usda.gov http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/san/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:37:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu To: san@nal.usda.gov Subject: Majordomo results -- >>>> help This help message is being sent to you from the Majordomo mailing list management system at Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu. This is version 1.94.3 of Majordomo. If you're familiar with mail servers, an advanced user's summary of Majordomo's commands appears at the end of this message. Majordomo is an automated system which allows users to subscribe and unsubscribe to mailing lists, and to retrieve files from list archives. You can interact with the Majordomo software by sending it commands in the body of mail messages addressed to "Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu". Please do not put your commands on the subject line; Majordomo does not process commands in the subject line. You may put multiple Majordomo commands in the same mail message. Put each command on a line by itself. If you use a "signature block" at the end of your mail, Majordomo may mistakenly believe each line of your message is a command; you will then receive spurious error messages. To keep this from happening, either put a line starting with a hyphen ("-") before your signature, or put a line with just the word end on it in the same place. This will stop the Majordomo software from processing your signature as bad commands. Here are some of the things you can do using Majordomo: I. FINDING OUT WHICH LISTS ARE ON THIS SYSTEM To get a list of publicly-available mailing lists on this system, put the following line in the body of your mail message to Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu: lists Each line will contain the name of a mailing list and a brief description of the list. To get more information about a particular list, use the "info" command, supplying the name of the list. For example, if the name of the list about which you wish information is "demo-list", you would put the line info demo-list in the body of the mail message. II. SUBSCRIBING TO A LIST Once you've determined that you wish to subscribe to one or more lists on this system, you can send commands to Majordomo to have it add you to the list, so you can begin receiving mailings. To receive list mail at the address from which you're sending your mail, simply say "subscribe" followed by the list's name: subscribe demo-list If for some reason you wish to have the mailings go to a different address (a friend's address, a specific other system on which you have an account, or an address which is more correct than the one that automatically appears in the "From:" header on the mail you send), you would add that address to the command. For instance, if you're sending a request from your work account, but wish to receive "demo-list" mail at your personal account (for which we will use "jqpublic@my-isp.com" as an example), you'd put the line subscribe demo-list jqpublic@my-isp.com in the mail message body. Based on configuration decisions made by the list owners, you may be added to the mailing list automatically. You may also receive notification that an authorization key is required for subscription. Another message will be sent to the address to be subscribed (which may or may not be the same as yours) containing the key, and directing the user to send a command found in that message back to Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu. (This can be a bit of extra hassle, but it helps keep you from being swamped in extra email by someone who forged requests from your address.) You may also get a message that your subscription is being forwarded to the list owner for approval; some lists have waiting lists, or policies about who may subscribe. If your request is forwarded for approval, the list owner should contact you soon after your request. Upon subscribing, you should receive an introductory message, containing list policies and features. Save this message for future reference; it will also contain exact directions for unsubscribing. If you lose the intro mail and would like another copy of the policies, send this message to Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu: intro demo-list (substituting, of course, the real name of your list for "demo-list"). III. UNSUBSCRIBING FROM MAILING LISTS Your original intro message contains the exact command which should be used to remove your address from the list. However, in most cases, you may simply send the command "unsubscribe" followed by the list name: unsubscribe demo-list (This command may fail if your provider has changed the way your address is shown in your mail.) To remove an address other than the one from which you're sending the request, give that address in the command: unsubscribe demo-list jqpublic@my-isp.com In either of these cases, you can tell Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu to remove the address in question from all lists on this server by using "*" in place of the list name: unsubscribe * unsubscribe * jqpublic@my-isp.com IV. FINDING THE LISTS TO WHICH AN ADDRESS IS SUBSCRIBED To find the lists to which your address is subscribed, send this command in the body of a mail message to Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu: which You can look for other addresses, or parts of an address, by specifying the text for which Majordomo should search. For instance, to find which users at my-isp.com are subscribed to which lists, you might send the command which my-isp.com Note that many list owners completely or fully disable the "which" command, considering it a privacy violation. V. FINDING OUT WHO'S SUBSCRIBED TO A LIST To get a list of the addresses on a particular list, you may use the "who" command, followed by the name of the list: who demo-list Note that many list owners allow only a list's subscribers to use the "who" command, or disable it completely, believing it to be a privacy violation. VI. RETRIEVING FILES FROM A LIST'S ARCHIVES Many list owners keep archives of files associated with a list. These may include: - back issues of the list - help files, user profiles, and other documents associated with the list - daily, monthly, or yearly archives for the list To find out if a list has any files associated with it, use the "index" command: index demo-list If you see files in which you're interested, you may retrieve them by using the "get" command and specifying the list name and archive filename. For instance, to retrieve the files called "profile.form" (presumably a form to fill out with your profile) and "demo-list.9611" (presumably the messages posted to the list in November 1996), you would put the lines get demo-list profile.form get demo-list demo-list.9611 in your mail to Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu. VII. GETTING MORE HELP To contact a human site manager, send mail to Majordomo-Owner@ces.ncsu.edu. To contact the owner of a specific list, send mail to that list's approval address, which is formed by adding "-approval" to the user-name portion of the list's address. For instance, to contact the list owner for demo-list@ces.ncsu.edu, you would send mail to demo-list-approval@ces.ncsu.edu. To get another copy of this help message, send mail to Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with a line saying help in the message body. VIII. COMMAND SUMMARY FOR ADVANCED USERS In the description below items contained in []'s are optional. When providing the item, do not include the []'s around it. Items in angle brackets, such as
, are meta-symbols that should be replaced by appropriate text without the angle brackets. It understands the following commands: subscribe [
] Subscribe yourself (or
if specified) to the named . unsubscribe [
] Unsubscribe yourself (or
if specified) from the named . "unsubscribe *" will remove you (or
) from all lists. This _may not_ work if you have subscribed using multiple addresses. get Get a file related to . index Return an index of files you can "get" for . which [
] Find out which lists you (or
if specified) are on. who Find out who is on the named . info Retrieve the general introductory information for the named . intro Retrieve the introductory message sent to new users. Non-subscribers may not be able to retrieve this. lists Show the lists served by this Majordomo server. help Retrieve this message. end Stop processing commands (useful if your mailer adds a signature). Commands should be sent in the body of an email message to "Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu". Multiple commands can be processed provided each occurs on a separate line. Commands in the "Subject:" line are NOT processed. If you have any questions or problems, please contact "Majordomo-Owner@ces.ncsu.edu". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 4 02:30:11 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA05530; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA13359; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id CAA22105 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:02:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id CAA22100 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:02:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from comp.uark.edu (root@comp.uark.edu [130.184.252.197]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id CAA06363 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ncatark.uark.edu (ncatark.uark.edu [130.184.41.248]) by comp.uark.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA19778 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 01:02:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Unknown ([130.184.41.238]) by ncatark.uark.edu (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id GAA20784 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 06:02:51 GMT Message-Id: <199710040602.GAA20784@ncatark.uark.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Steve Diver" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:51:38 +0000 Subject: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Yields Benefits to Farmers Reply-to: steved@ncatark.uark.edu X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 61 Research on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Yields Benefits to Farmers A side benefit of the search for alternatives to methyl bromide, scheduled for phase-out in 2001, is the research and education on cultural practices and biological controls that are common to organic agriculture, or are closely aligned with technologies appropriate to sustainable agriculture: *crop rotations *cover crops to enhance soil foodweb *fumi-toxic brassica cover crops *soil amendments--compost, animal manures, green manures, sewage sludge, animal byproducts, fish byproducts, chitin, brassica green chop *soil solarization *steam pasteurization *hot water *microbial antagonists--SoilGaurd, Mycostop, Promot *microbial nematacides--DiTera *microbial inoculation--mycorrhizae, trichoderma *natural biological control of soil pathogens--antagonism, competition, antibiotics, induced resistance, suppressive soils, predation *disease-suppressive composts *resistant varieties *cultural practices--delayed planting, transplants, microbial inoculation, cover crops, soil amendments While methyl bromide has played an important role in the development of certain horticultural industries, especially in California and Florida, an instructive note is that 90-95% of all crops in the U.S. are grown without fumigants like methyl bromide. The situation in Florida and California is skewed, largely due to production of continuously cropped monocultures such as strawberries, tomatoes, and peppers on high value land. Nursery and ornamental crops account for 10% of methyl bromide use in the U.S. The soils that produce grain crops on the vast acreages of farmland, as well as those that support small-acreage horticultural crops in many parts of the country , do not require fumigation because husbandry practices do not push soil-borne diseases and nematodes to the limit. Thus, for a majority of farmers, methyl bromide is a non-issue. And for the methyl bromide-dependent California and Florida farmers, there is information emerging which suggests that adoption of sustainable farming technologies, especially those that focus on soil health, is a necessary step. Three resources on alternatives to methyl bromide worth a look: 1. 1996 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, proceedings of a conference held November 4-6, 1996 in Orlando, Florida. 2. IPM Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, a compilation of articles from The IPM Practitioner 3. Methyl Bromide Alternatives, a USDA web site with full-text articles and technical reports http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/july1997/index.htm ============================================= Selected articles from USDA's Methyl Bromide Alternatives site: ============================================= Biologically Controlling Soilborne Pests: A Research Overviews http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan97/soilpest.htm California Strawberries: An Integrated Approach Overview http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan97/calstraw.htm Soil Amendments Instead of Methly Bromide? http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan97/amend.htm Effect of Soil Solarization & Cover Crops on Soilborne Pests & Plant Pathogens http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/oct96/soil.htm Netherlands' Alternatives to Methyl Bromide http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/oct96/nether.htm Potential Alternatives for Floriculture http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/july96/macdon1.htm Portable Unit Sterilizes Soil http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/july1997/steam.htm Broccoli Chemical Soil Fumigants http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/july96/subbar1.htm Alternatives to MeBr for Control of Soilborne Pests of Grapevines & Tree Fruits & Nuts http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/oct96/grapev.htm Use of Hot Water for Nematode Control: A Research Summary http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/april96/noling.htm DiTera: Controlling Nematodes Biologically http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan97/ditera.htm SoilGard Story http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan96/lumsden.htm Southern Root-knot Nematode Resistant Bell Peppers http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/july1997/pepper.htm Summary of 1995-96 Large-Scale Field Demonstration/Validation Plots for Soil Solarization (Tomatoes) http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/april97/techrpt.htm =============================================== Steve Diver ATTRA http://www.attra.org -- steved@ncatark.uark.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 4 11:36:08 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA10849; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 11:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA24867; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 11:31:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA21373 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA21350 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA19169 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s20.term1.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.150]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA09880; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 07:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971004075857.007b74e0@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 07:58:57 -0700 To: Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov In-Reply-To: <971003100352_-763134745@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 62 At 10:06 AM 10/3/97 -0400, Erorganic@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 97-09-30 11:24:49 EDT, sals@rain.org writes: > ><< Subj: > Recent proposals by both the State and Federal governments are threatening > to require that we spend more and more time filling out forms,paying > fees,and handling the requirements of an ever growing bureaucracy > established to regulate "Organic". there is something wrong when those who > are trying to straighten out agriculture are being taxed and burdened with > inspections and paperwork while those who continue to pollute and deplete > are subsidized and allowed to continue, > >eak: I cannot speak for California's CDFA, but the USDA National Organic >Program can and will, if organic farmers and others actively participate in >the public comment period on the Proposed Organic Rule, streamline all the >forms and the time necessary to be certified organic. All of California's >existing statutes and the operative polices, standards and guidelines of all >private and State certifiers will be null and void upon implementation of the >USDA's National Organic Program. To me that means Californians or others who >have felt afflicted by past and added on state laws that apply to organic >production and certification have a whole new lease to redesign those laws. > The Organic Foods Production Act supersedes all private and State >certification programs. Under OFPA private certification organizations (as >well as States) may apply for USDA accrediation. That means that accredited >organic certifiers will certify that a farm or handling operation applicant >is utilizing a system of organic farming or handling as defined by OFPA, its >Rules and Policies. Under OFPA there is only one standard for organic >farming and handling in the US. Only States (not private certifiers) can >apply to the Secretary of Agriculture for approval of a state organic >certification program which must not conflict with OFPA in any way, but may >contain more restrictive requirements and standards than OFPA, must further >the purposes of OFPA and only applies to organic farmers and handlers within >the state. It seems absurd that any state would want to place an undue >burdan on its own farmers and handlers that farmers and handlers in other >states do not have to follow to market in that particuliar state. If a >state does secure approval from the Secretary for a State Organic Program, >all private accredited organic certifiers in the State have to conform to the >State Program as well as the USDA/NOP program. So, implementation of OFPA >will open the door to re-evaluate all existing State organic programs, their >standards and policies. > This is just sweet talk saying that the certifier,inspector,local certifier,state and fed. gov. can tax organic farmers . No organic farmer I know of thinks this is to help the farmer it is to protect the comsumer. So they have to sweeten it up and con farmers into thinking it is for them because they need the organic farmer to pay for them to enforce it. They need someone to tax so they act like it is to help farmers but it is really an attempt to suck money out of them.Bottom line-- it is a tax on organic farming. And the poor organic farmers that cannot afford it must get out of business . These bully boys are going to suck money out of every organic farmer in the US if he sells $5000 in a whole year of crops . Look at the energy they are sucking out of the organic movement. The state of Ca. has suck hundred of thousands of dollars out of us already. The USDA are going to suck money from hard working farmers (carry boxes,plant fields,weeders,prunders,handlers,packers etc you get the idea ) and give that money to pencils pushers that produce no product and must get their income from hard working people. yes they will let you actively participate in the public comment which is a big act . I have been in these public comments before and check it out. They had a public comment when they allowed cows to be injected with a lab made genetically engendered growth hormone. I heard the public comments and most were against the part were the USDA would not label their handy work. the comments went on for days with people telling how it was bad for the poorer farmers and bad for the cows etc. for days and day but the USDA did what they wanted too and I was there when they had a public comment on BHT DNA in plants and the public told them about resistance and so forth but the USDA did what they wanted to anyway . this public comment time is a way to pacify the people while they frame their mischief and call it law. In the public comment time the only thing the poor organic farmer will find out it that truly they have made a political football out of their lively hood. We were sold out > Many of those who supported the move to have the state and federal > governments police our movement and those who sought approval from Uncle > Sam have quickly realized that they made the proverbial deal with the > devil. Unfortunately it is too late to stop the weels of bureaucracy, we > will need to gather together (in the way that this movement was originally > built) and ask ourselves some difficult questions. > > The undersigned invite you to a meeting at 7:00 pm Monday October 6, in the > Music Room of the Montessori school located at 401N. fairview ave. (across > the street from the Goleta Public Library and Fairview Gardens). Please > park in the back parking lot, walk through the gate in the middle of the > fence. there is a map on the gate showing the location of the Music Room. > > Please come join us to both educate ourselves on how the new legislation > will effect us and to seek ways that we can help each other through the > mire this will create., > > > ------Hey Hey whats that sound every one look whats going down!--------- > I grow organic and am certified by CCOF and also have to pay the state of > >>>Ca. to sell organic soon the feds will also tax us to sell organic and > >>this is way too much regulation. > > >eak: Regulation is not going to go away. In fact, we organic farmers and >handlers developed it. CCOF, QAI, OCIA have attempted to be regulatory >agencies without any teeth. Under OFPA they will have teeth, and in turn >will have to tow the line of meeting consistent and uniform national >standards for how they carry on their certification activities. Again, the >questions that remains are does implementation of OFPA impinge on the ability >of certified organic farmers and handlers to develop markets and maintain a >decent income and way of life? The answer is clear and simple. The US is a >democracy. A democracy demands active participation, especially if some >activity of the governing or regulatory process effects an individuals life >and income. The major opportunity for each of us to actively participate is >coming shortly before or after Thanksgiving--the beginning of the public >comment period on the Proposed Rule. Informed public comment via email or >writing is in order for the next 3 to 4 months after this date. Three public >meetings are planned to be held possibly in Richmond, VA or Pittsburg, PA, >St. Louis, MO and Sacramento, CA or Eugene, OR. where USDA will answer >questions on the content of the Proposed Rule. Further it has been suggested >that a National Organic Standards Board meeting will be held where further >public input may be made on the Proposed Rule. Date and location unspecified >as of now. it is true that we organic farmers created CCOF, QAI, OCIA and organic rules but we have been sold out to the control freaks. kiss all the work we did good by. CCOF,QAI and all the others will be taking their orders from USDA and they also will have to pay and bow down because they are no longer ours they belong to the USDA and the USDA has a different agenda then organic growers. . organic farmer is now a political football left to the whims ,pack money,back door deals and wild hairs of the folks that have nothing better to do than set around a room and vote .And believe me they are good at this part of the game because that is were they get their moneys. >eak: On cost to be certified organic under the USDA/NOP: actual cost of >certification including inspection fees are up to the USDA accredited >certifying agent. However, OFPA does say that the USDA Organic Program will >provide for the collection of reasonable fees from producers, certifying >agents and handlers. Under OFPA, every farmer or handler can shop around for >whom they feel is most reasonable and that they find most satisfactory to be >their certifier. There will be a new fee, the fee for accreditation, that >will be charged to certifying agents. In fact, we know this will be passed >on along to the farm or handling operation applicant by the certifier. > Nonetheless, the additional fee should meet the criteria of resonableness. > Numerous times over the last 5 years, the actual additional cost for the >USDA/NOP as it is outlined in OFPA has been calculated. The results are >always the same. $15 to $25 per year, per organic farmer will finance the >program. This does not even count handlers. There is no reason the fee >charged first to the certifier, then to the farmer and handler needs to >exceed $20 for each farm. The fees could be pro rated by acres or a general >category of amount of sales that the farmer or handler pays on an honesty >system. The question is can I afford to pay say $20 a year for the benefits >of a consistent, uniform standard of organic farming, handling and >certification--for all organic imports into the US having to meet the >equivalent standards US farmers and handlers have to meet--for the option of >each certified organic farmer and handler being able to use a national seal >identifying my product as meeting the USDA National Organic Program >standards? And there are a lot more benefits. Please name the benefits because I can sure name the costs . I feel the cost the benefits are in your mind. Please don't fool the people we know it will cost a lot more that $ 20 a year that is just the what the USDA expects to get from every organic grower in the whole US. every year for the rest of time. This is an added tax on top of what we are already paying. This guy is sure good at sweet talking us and making us think it will only be $20 but most of us know it will cost us lots lots more and a organic grower should not have to pay 1 cent in extra tax because he grows and sells organic. They want to make a law let them pay for it. you give this guy $20 and that guy 75 for the state and this other guy 200 to the inspector and 25 for the local chapter and 125 to the main chapter plus a percent of your crop. Tell it like it is : It is an extra tax of those that grow and sell organic that have done nothing wrong. > > >Do you think organic certification should be eliminated completely? > > Obviously I can't speak for Sal, but he is one of the people who pays > my salary in working for the organization that certifies him. Our > members believe in certification, otherwise they wouldn't join. And > most are painfully aware of the fraud of which you speak. Our members > overwhelmingly supported the state and federal law under the > assumption that fraud would be sharply reduced, benefitting both > consumers and legitimate organic producers. > > However, at this point certification in California and most of the > rest of the country is optional for those who label their product as > organic. Registration fees did not go to enforcement the first year or > two ('91-'92) and were instead commingled with the general fund in the > state at the time of fiscal gridlock. This led to growing discontent > among our members toward the law. While the funds were restored to the > program, and things improved, many of our members are still > disappointed with what they are getting for the hundreds of thousands > of dollars they contribute to the California registration program on > top of what we charge them to be certified. > > >eak: These are good points. The problem rests in Sacramento, not the >USDA/NOP. No your right the USDA/NOP is a brand new tax on those good folks that work hard growing organic. It is the USDA/NOP/mafia move on our money. If the USDA think organic farmers are not following the law let the USDA pay for the enforcement that is their job mine is growing organic not paying for organic gastopo.. I did not do anything wrong and I don't need a expensive baby sitter that I am being forced to take and there is something wrong when those who are trying to straighten out agriculture are being taxed and burdened with inspections and paperwork while those who continue to pollute and deplete are subsidized and allowed to continue, I should be free to chose to grow organic and free to sell my crop as organic if it is. I should not have to pay the Mafia bully boys to stay in bussiness. > Even when certification becomes mandatory for producers who sell more > than $5,000 worth of product, people will still have the choice of > whether to label their product as organic or not. However, the > prospect of the Federal government collecting user fees from growers, > and from certifiers who will have no choice but to pass those fees on > to the growers, > > The question then becomes who should bear the cost, and are organic > farmers paying their fair share or more than their fair share for > doing what they believe is the right thing. > >eak: Some details of cost above. Complete analysis of USDA/NOP cost is >available. Yea they all have the costs available. yeah joe needed a new computer and you farmers will have to pay for it. yeah pet needed a new car you organic growers will have to pay for it.yeah jim needs a motel room and you organic farmers will have to pay for it. yeah all these folks have to eat too so you organic growers will have to pay for them after all they are not producing anything and you are so you poor small farmers should give it up because you grow organic. here it is in black and white the cost and here is the bill and guess what you are force to pay it. > > >Who should pay for this? > > Here's an idea. How about a tax on pesticides? Unfair, you say? > Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Not if you consider .... and hold on to > your chair 'cause i'll say it only once .... that organic farmers use > pesticides. That's right. Only a small handful of the vast array of > pesticides that are out there, and really never as the only means of > crop protection. Most of them are relatively innocuous, like soap, > Bt, garlic. Yet in California, the mil tax on a pound of any of those > products is the same as the tax on, say, aldicarb, methyl bromide or > parathion. > > Even in simplistic terms, why should farmers pay the same tax on > Category III pesticide (the least acutely toxic) as they do on those > in Category I (the most toxic)? If a given pesticide causes relatively > few injuries, is not persistant on food or in the environment, and > causes relatively little collateral damage, pound for pound, where is > the justice in taxing that the same as a product that contaminates > groundwater, depletes ozone or inhibits cholinesterase in nearby > schoolchildren? > > Our members wanted to see the mil tax applied to funding the > enforcement of the organic act, but the legislature received enormous > pressure from the agrichemical complex to lower the mil tax during the > last legislative session. We were one of the few voices among > agricultural producers who favored maintaining the mil tax and fought > the efforts to cut it about 25%. > >eak: Sounds like a 10 year project. I support it, others might. USDA/NOP is >now at hand. Yes you are right this will be a whole new tax on organic growers. the USDA/NOP is in a room right now making up the tax they are going to charge me because I am organic. The big move by the control freaks is now at hand. Get ready to bow down and kiss up.yes boss yeah boss should I just a little higher. oh thank you boss. > >But do you think consumers would want to pay the same > >price for your goods if they weren't certified organic? > >After all, isn't that what being > >organic is really all about? People who truly care about the environment >are > >willing to make sacrifices. That's why many consumers of organic products >are > >willing to pay a higher price for those goods. > > When people buy food produced by methods that pollute water and air, > poison farmworkers, kill wildlife and leave higher residual levels of > carcinogenic pesticides, they are getting more than what they pay for. > They have this choice, and choose overwhelmingly to buy non-organic > instead of organic food. Yet most consumers, when surveyed, don't want > to cause this kind of destruction. > > To use economic jargon, organic farmers internalize many if not most > of these internal costs. That makes their costs of production higher > and therefore requires that they receive a higher price in order to > remain economically viable. Organic food is not perfect, but IMHO it > is our best alternative. It is not that organic food is too expensive, > it is that conventional food doesn't reflect the full cost of > production. > >eak: Absolutely correct in the last sentence. oh gee thanks eak . there is something wrong when those who are trying to straighten out agriculture are being taxed and burdened with inspections and paperwork while those who continue to pollute and deplete are subsidized and allowed to continue, Not one cent extra that is reasonable to me. > Production methods for all farmers will improve if we stop penalizing > those who protect the environment and make the polluter pay. > > > Sal said ---I don't think organic growers should have to pay one extra cent > to grow and sell their organic food as organic. > >eak: One point. Under OFPA, no accredited certifier can charge a percent of >gross sales to be USDA/NOP certified. A private certifier can charge you a >percent of gross sales to be a member of their private organization and use >their private seal. Under OFPA for a State to charge a USDA certified >organic farmer or handler a fee, the Secretary of Agriculture will have to >approve such. They force us to pay a certifier and then leave us to the mercy of those certifiers . The certifier don't have enough inspector now. inspectors are few and far between and guess what the organic farmer get to pay the gas ,motel room,massgae girl etc. all the cost no mater how far these inspector have to travel. the full cost will be on the backs of the organic farmer and he is FORCED to Pay. Those poor farmers that live in out of the way places I feel sorry for you. Poor farmers that cannot afford all this will be forced out of bussiness. $5000 is too small . This is the small farms listserver does that mean that it is for folks that sell under $5000. What is a small farm? is $5000 and under considered a small farm. I don't think so. What is the average per annual sells of farms in the US so I can get an idea of what is small. > > ----------------------- >> > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 07:49:56 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA27491; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 07:49:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA10887; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 07:45:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id HAA18372 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 07:14:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id HAA18368 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 07:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id HAA19762 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 07:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s22.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.182]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA15760; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 04:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971005041221.007b8410@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 04:12:21 -0700 To: Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov In-Reply-To: <971003100352_-763134745@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 63 It has been said of me that I sound angry.I am and in this time in history when the family farm is disappearing in record numbers.the UDSA/NOP is being cruel and heartless saying that a small farm is $5000 or less and anything over $5000 should be taxed. In this day of farm aid, in this day while we are trying to get to help to small family farmers and save the small farm the last thing they need is a tax if they chose to farm organic. This just showed me that the USDA/NOP is a heartless bunch of people that only want to tax the poor in order to support their own exsistance. The average size of farms in Virginia increased from 181.97 acres in 1982 to 196.51 acres in 1992, an increase of nearly 8 percent. At the same time, the number of farms decreased by 18.6 percent from 51,859 to 42,222. The amount of land in farms fell by 12 percent from more than 9.4 million acres in 1982 to just under 8.3 million acres a decade later. So farm size is increasing while the big fish eat the little fish. It looks to me like a small farm would fall at about 50 acres or less. There is a direct link between small farmers and the promotion of sustainable agriculture efforts. In order to encourage this link, we should not tax the small organic farmer. this taken from the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center on loss of small farms http://www2.ncredc.org/ncredc/papers/smfarmses.html A loss of 13,544 farms (18.6% of the 72,792 present in 1982 A loss of 2,049 minority farms (38.3% of the 5,352 present in 1982) A loss of 6,627 small farms (22.1% of the 29,968 farms of less than 50 acres present in 1982)1 Here it is again 50 or less acres is considered a small farm. I think anything under 50 acres should qualify for the small farmers exemption http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/OrganicCrop/4farmer.htm I do not know where the USDA/NOP came up with the $5000 number but I can not get by the very first line in the NOP. it states that those selling only $5000 will be qualify for the small farmers exemption. This number is way to small and the NOP will be a burden on the small farmer that we so much want to save. This oppression on the poor would make a wise man mad. The introduction of new crops, animal enterprises, and new methods of structuring agricultural production make the effective delivery of agriculture technological, financial management, and marketing services to diverse clientele more important than in the past. Organic farming give the small farmer hope and we should help them not tax them. All the people that are trying to save the small farmer should take note of what these people are doing by taxing the small farmer. Most people with small farms have to work off farm just to keep it together and the NOP wants to take money out of their mouths. there is something wrong when those who are trying to straighten out agriculture are being taxed and burdened with inspections and paperwork while those who continue to pollute and deplete are subsidized and allowed to continue, Go ! Farm Aid save the small farmer from loosing their farm Booo! NOP just another tax on the poor. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 10:15:05 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA29028; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA29565; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id JAA20213 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id JAA20172 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id JAA23037 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s12.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.172]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA20439; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 06:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971005064841.007b1ce0@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 06:48:41 -0700 To: sal , Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971005041221.007b8410@rain.org> References: <971003100352_-763134745@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 64 The USDA seems to want to help the small farmer so why the tax on the small organic farmer when the USDA just asked : We are seeking testimony from various sources to arrive at conclusions and recommendations that will ensure the continued viability of small farms. The Commission requests that testimony and comments include ideas and recommendations based on the following questions. Concerns or problems of individual farms that relate to specific USDA programs should be addressed only in the context of a recommendation for the Commission to consider. The questions are: 1. How are current USDA programs helping or hurting the viability of small farms? 2. What are the needs of small farms in terms of financing, research, extension, marketing and risk management and other areas? What recommendations would you make about these needs that could be part of a long-range strategy to ensure the continued viability of small farms? 3. Are there innovative non-governmental or state efforts to assist beginning and smaller independent farms that might be replicated or supplemented at the Federal level? 4. What changes in USDA policy or practices are needed to make USDA programs in the areas of credit, research, extension, marketing, risk management and other areas more effective in enabling small farms to survive and thrive? 5. What new programs could provide effective and affordable support for small farmers as commodity programs are phased out? I say you can start by not charging the poor organic farmer just because he want to sell his organic products as organic. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 10:24:53 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA29126; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA01079; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id JAA27110 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:58:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id JAA27106 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id JAA23178 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s12.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.172]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA20623; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 06:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971005065508.007b08b0@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 06:55:08 -0700 To: sal , Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971005041221.007b8410@rain.org> References: <971003100352_-763134745@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 65 I feel that if the USDA truly wants to help the small farmer they would not charge the small farmer one cent extra if he want to sell his organic crop as organic., The USDA says they are looking to help the small farmer by starting things like this: : We are seeking testimony from various sources to arrive at conclusions and recommendations that will ensure the continued viability of small farms. The Commission requests that testimony and comments include ideas and recommendations based on the following questions. Concerns or problems of individual farms that relate to specific USDA programs should be addressed only in the context of a recommendation for the Commission to consider. The questions are: 1. How are current USDA programs helping or hurting the viability of small farms? 2. What are the needs of small farms in terms of financing, research, extension, marketing and risk management and other areas? What recommendations would you make about these needs that could be part of a long-range strategy to ensure the continued viability of small farms? 3. Are there innovative non-governmental or state efforts to assist beginning and smaller independent farms that might be replicated or supplemented at the Federal level? 4. What changes in USDA policy or practices are needed to make USDA programs in the areas of credit, research, extension, marketing, risk management and other areas more effective in enabling small farms to survive and thrive? 5. What new programs could provide effective and affordable support for small farmers as commodity programs are phased out?[[Page 45618]] 6. What can be done to assist beginning farmers and farm workers to become farm owners? 7. What role should the Federal government play to ensure a diversified, decentralized and competitive farm structure? 8. What do small farms contribute to your community and your state? 9. What other generic issues pertaining to small farms should the Commission consider? I would say that the USDA will go a long way to help the small farmer by raising the small farmers exemption to 50 acres or more before the extra expenses kicks in. http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/OrganicCrop/4farmer.htm To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 10:28:34 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA29200; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:28:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA01621; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA29378 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA29369 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:03:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA23862 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s12.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.172]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA20900; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 07:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971005070346.007b08b0@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 07:03:46 -0700 To: sal , Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971005041221.007b8410@rain.org> References: <971003100352_-763134745@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 66 1043-43 dated July 9, 1997, established the National Commission on Small Farms (Commission) and further identified the Natural Resources Conservation Service to provide support to the Commission. The purpose of the Commission is to gather and analyze information regarding small farms and ranches and recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture a national policy and strategy to ensure their continued viability. The Commission's next meeting is October 14 and 15, 1997. The USDA/NOP cost may hurt the small organic farmer and handlers and they should rethink the $5000 and raise add a 0 to the end . They should say $50000 in farm sells to be fair to the small farmer and handlers http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/OrganicCrop/4farmer.htm To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 10:45:49 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA29388; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA04769; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA05835 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA05814 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA24005 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s12.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.172]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA21205; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 07:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971005071245.007b9ce0@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 07:12:45 -0700 To: sal , Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971005041221.007b8410@rain.org> References: <971003100352_-763134745@emout18.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 67 It is well established that ecologically sound agriculture works on a >>>small scale and is profitable to some. >> >>In a high-priced niche specialist area, certainly.lets not hold these good folks back Recent proposals by both the State and Federal governments are threatening > to require that we spend more and more time filling out forms,paying > fees,and handling the requirements of an ever growing bureaucracy > established to regulate "Organic". there is something wrong when those who > are trying to straighten out agriculture are being taxed and burdened with > inspections and paperwork while those who continue to pollute and deplete > are subsidized and allowed to continue, To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 12:12:34 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA02863; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA24681; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA24754 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 11:31:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA24717 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 11:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.1stnet.com (root@mail1.1stnet.com [206.104.32.40]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA25696 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 11:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bruce (ppp06.1stnet.com [206.104.46.6]) by dancer.1stnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA14376 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:31:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3437B021.2C22@1stnet.com> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 10:20:01 -0500 From: "Susan K. Snow" Reply-To: sksnow@1stnet.com Organization: Pollution Solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 68 Sal, As an consumer of certified organic foods, what can I do to make sure that the grains, beans, and produce that I buy, are free from intentionally used manmade chemicals without the cost being passed on to the small grower, like yourself? Susan Snow To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 13:40:37 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA03952; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA13107; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id NAA19841 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id NAA18365 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id NAA28271 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.44]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA24213; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:06:35 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3437D41F.14FE@acnet.net> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 11:53:35 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sal CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers References: <3.0.2.32.19971005041221.007b8410@rain.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 69 sal wrote: > > It has been said of me that I sound angry.I am It is clear to me that you raise valid points that should be presented to a concerned public. Since you are the one that sees and feels these things things (I myself am out of the U.S. most of the time and am not presently farming in the U.S. so you are certainly taking the heat more I am, for instance), you are the logical one to provide the leadership needed to drive these points home to the people in policy making positions. These people respond to pressures that come from numbers, from organized groups. I strongly suggest that you organize a movement to represent those who share your point of view. You may want to channel your passion in a colder but more effective way. You can be instrumental in getting these changes recognized and acted upon. I am not aware of anyone else putting the energy into this issue that you are (and knowing Eric K. personally, I doubt that he's going to be of much help - he certainly didn't follow though on any of the committments he made to me personally, or even return some things I foolishly loaned him), and I think you would be better off taking to time to put a name on your cause, (i.e. "Small Organic Farm Defense Movement - SOFDM or whatever), delineate your goals in print and collect enough signatures to either get the attention of policy makers or get a proposition on the ballot. I include below a (very) few of the points you've brought out that make a lot of sense: > the UDSA/NOP > is being cruel and heartless saying that a small farm is $5000 or less > and anything over $5000 should be taxed. It > looks to me like a small farm would fall at about 50 acres or less. > > There is a direct link between small farmers and the promotion of > sustainable agriculture efforts. In order to encourage this link, we > should not tax the small organic farmer. > > I think anything under 50 acres should qualify for the small farmers > > exemption. > I do not know where the USDA/NOP came up with the $5000 number but ... > This number is > way to small and the NOP will be a burden on the small farmer that we > so much want to save. > The introduction of new crops, animal enterprises, and new methods of > structuring agricultural production make the effective delivery of > agriculture technological, financial management, and marketing > > services to diverse clientele more important than in the past. > > Organic farming give the small farmer hope and we should help them not > tax them. > The questions are: > 1. How are current USDA programs helping or hurting the viability > of small farms? Let them know! > 2. What are the needs of small farms in terms of > financing, research, extension, marketing and risk management and > < other areas? > What recommendations would you make about these needs that could be > part of a long-range strategy to ensure the continued viability of > < small farms? Ditto! > 3. Are there innovative non-governmental or state efforts to assist > beginning and smaller independent farms that might be replicated or > supplemented at the Federal level? Get your movment organized and on the map. > 4. What changes in USDA policy or practices are needed to make USDA > programs in the areas of credit, research, extension, marketing, risk > management and other areas more effective in enabling small farms to > survive and thrive? Provide feedback - but do it as an organization. You'll have to form one, if you haven't yet. > 5. What new programs could provide effective and affordable support > for small farmers as commodity programs are phased out? Take them up on it. Present them with a program. > 6. What can be done to assist beginning farmers and farm workers to > become farm owners? Tell them - Withdraw the tax or raise the acreage requirements. > 7. What role should the Federal government play to ensure a > diversified, decentralized and competitive farm structure? Provide your input. > 8. What do small farms contribute to your community and your state? Tell them. > 9. What other generic issues pertaining to small farms should the > Commission consider? Etc. >I would say that the USDA will go a long way to help the small farmer > by raising the small farmers exemption to 50 acres or more before the > extra expenses kicks in. > The purpose of the Commission is to gather and analyze information > regarding small farms and ranches and recommend to the Secretary of > Agriculture a national policy and strategy to ensure their continued > viability. The Commission's next meeting is October 14 and 15, 1997. Be there and be heard! > The USDA/NOP cost may hurt the small organic farmer and handlers and > > they should rethink the $5000 and raise add a 0 to the end . They > > > should say $50000 in farm sells to be fair to the small farmer and > > handlers I'm sure you get the picture. -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 15:41:03 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA07239; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA10818; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:36:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id OAA12647 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id OAA12587 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id OAA01291 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:31:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s18.term1.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.148]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA03961; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 11:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971005113125.007b6960@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 11:31:25 -0700 To: sksnow@1stnet.com, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers In-Reply-To: <3437B021.2C22@1stnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 70 I am not asking for no regulations I am saying why burden the small farmer. Did you read=20 http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/OrganicCrop/4farmer.htm They still have to follow reg. yet they can avoid the cost. The thing is a small farmer annual sells is way to low and should be raised because it is set way to low poor small farmers will be forced to pay the state ,the certifier, the inspector,the local chapter of the certifier and the fed. gov money which they may need to live on. Do you really want to tax the small farmer . How many penile pushers does it take to prove to you we farm organic. How many people to we have to pay off and how much of our hard earned money do we have to pay out for doing nothing wrong?=20 I have been certified organic for years and every year the cost goes up yet I have not change the way I farm. every year I have to pay off all these folks that do not help one bit in growing organic and why I farm no different this year than I did last. Why not check each farmer every day or even every min. This is crazy that every year there is a new cost and a new level of big government bureaucracy that I am force to pay. I have to go through all this and I never change from year to year. I am the same . just because it is `1997 I am still the same but yet I have to go through this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay . every year pay the state every year pay a inspector and every year pay the certifier pay pay pay for what I am the same I am farming the same why should all these folks be supported by my hard work. I did nothing wrong so why tax me.=20 I can not afford it. That does not mean my crop is not organic . It is not the money we are forced to pay that makes us organic it is the way we grow. =20 Will you not accept : (1) Signature on a completed Declaration form, which attests to a thorough knowledge of the provisions of the OFPA and to the production and handling of organic products according to the OFPA. (2) The development of an Organic Farm and/or Handling Plan, in accordance with the requirements of the OFPA. (3) The establishment of record-keeping adequate to trace an organic product from production site through to sale for consumption. Records must be kept for five years. (4) The provisions of public access to the above document=20 Exempted Small Farmers who demonstrate compliance with the OFPA shall be able to market non-certified organic products from their farms directly to consumers at direct sales outlets.=20 Examples of direct sales outlets include roadside stands, farm markets, and consumer subscription programs (Community Supported Agriculture). Exempted Small Farmers who wish to market directly to retail outlets may do so by providing copies of the Declaration form to the individual retail outlet.(now this part I also do not agree with.) In no instance shall non-certified organic products be marketed through exporters, wholesalers, brokers, processors, or retail chain warehouses.=20 Why? If I am organic I should be able to sell to wholesalers,exporters and anyone else that will buy my crop. If I am a small farmer I need all the help I can get. =20 Furthermore, an exempt farmer may not sell or label an agricultural product as "certified organic" unless certified by an USDA-accredited certifying agency. The exempted Small Farmer and/or retail outlet may display the Small Farmer Declaration form at the place of sale. There shall be no mandatory filing requirements for the above small farmer exemption provisions. All required information must be on file and available on the premises of the exempted farmer . Is this enough for you? you can then buy certified or small farmer exempt. Or do you want a armed cop walking around the place every day and the farmer has to pay him. .Somewhere in all this is trust. you can if you wish to pay for it get the crop tested yourself. Why not let all the chemical farmers that sell over $5000 pay for it. =20 do you really think setting up a big government bureaucracy will help the consumer . it will only make the food cost more and at the same time=20 burden the small farmer and drive people that want to grow organic away . It has already. it is wrong to put an extra tax organic growers for selling organic produce as organic. I would think that the consumers like you would not want to see the poor farmer burden because he grows organic. There have been people that lie and they get caught now .There are lots of laws on the books that don't single out one group of folks to tax. The USDA can give a definition of what organic is and everyone will have to follow it or the USDA can catch them but don't tax the folks that are telling the truth and cannot afford it. You know how fast small farms are desipering? Tax the cheaters when you catch them and let the good folks farm organic with out the added tax and burdens. Use the money you get from catching the crooks like traffic tickets or breaking and entering these laws don't need to make poor small farmers pay for the enforcement . I think there should be a small farmer ex At 10:20 AM 10/5/97 -0500, Susan K. Snow wrote: >Sal, >As an consumer of certified organic foods, what can I do to make sure >that the grains, beans, and produce that I buy, are free from >intentionally used manmade chemicals without the cost being passed on to >the small grower, like yourself? > >Susan Snow > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 15:58:11 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA07454; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA15195; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id PAA16348 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id PAA16321 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id PAA02649 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s14.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.174]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA07294; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971005122634.007b2100@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:26:34 -0700 To: sal From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <3437D41F.14FE@acnet.net> References: <3.0.2.32.19971005041221.007b8410@rain.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 71 At 11:53 AM 10/5/97 -0600, Douglas Hinds wrote: >sal wrote: >> >> It has been said of me that I sound angry.I am > >It is clear to me that you raise valid points that should be presented >to a concerned public. Since you are the one that sees and feels these >things things (I myself am out of the U.S. most of the time and am not >presently farming in the U.S. so you are certainly taking the heat more >I am, for instance), you are the logical one to provide the leadership >needed to drive these points home to the people in policy making >positions. that is my whole point !organic growing is now a political football and it is in the hands for those folks that play the political game the best not me I only know how to farm organic. . I have enough problems now. I have all ready made the certifiers,inspectors and USDA mad at me. Good let them know what every organic growers feels every day . Mistrust ! That is what they show me and I am a mirror so I mistrust them sameway. and it is not for any wrong they have done or that I have done/ . I like my certifier and have for years but they are busy saving their own rear ends. They have to fight for every inch and they don't seem to mind sacrificing the small farmers money to get their way. They sold us out trying to save us. The inspectors are not going to ask that the farmer not pay because they get their pay from us. you see all these folks that are supposed to be representing us now have to represent themselfs. And the state and the government say they know there needs to be regulations but who will pay for it and our own certifiers and others in the movement say get it from the farmer who grows organic . I say WRONG So I have to say please don't speak for me anymore as you seem to have walked all over me and I put my trust in you all and supported you all for years and you left me holding the bag. This is not what organic growing is about. They were supposed to be our mouth peace and they have done a bad job as it is the organic farmer that has to pay for this whole deal . Most small farmers are not into politics and now organic growing is a political football. I think the public comment is Bull shit and that we organic growers have already been hung up to dry. I have seen enough public comments to know its a lot of noise signifying nothing. The USDA is going to do what they want no matter what. They own all the words. It is their agenda and they have the guns. You need a law degree and a science degree just to talk to them. They don't have hearts they don't care about morals or religion or even ethics .they don't mind oppressing the poor .Just look they made the small farmer thing only $5000 every one that makes over that small amount is fair game for a tax. And it is not just one tax you have to pay off a whole lot of folks. If you cannot afford to pay off all these folks you are out of bussiness. You cannot reason with people like this. The only thing they know is "Show me the money." They don't want to see signatures they want to see the money!!!. The USDA says they want to help the small farmer yet in the same year they make up a special tax to drop right on them and them alone. Help like this I don't need. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 19:48:42 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA10126; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA05256; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:43:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id SAA25149 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 18:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id SAA25145 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 18:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x11.boston.juno.com (x11.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.26]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id SAA07669 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 18:58:07 -0400 (EDT) From: woodyw@juno.com Received: (from woodyw@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id SCT27722; Sun, 05 Oct 1997 18:57:08 EDT To: sksnow@1stnet.com, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 18:53:39 -0400 Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Message-ID: <19971005.185342.11638.1.woodyw@juno.com> References: <3437B021.2C22@1stnet.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,9-10,12-13,16-22,24-38 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 72 Susan: Here is one way to look at your question: << what can I do to make sure that the grains, beans, and produce that I buy, are free from intentionally used manmade chemicals>>: You can *give up* your own power to seek out such foods for yourself, by depending on third-party agencies, which may be competent [or not], which may uphold standards you you yourself would devise [or not], standards which may very soon be co-opted by the agribiz powers-that-be. OR You can seek out the food, grown by people you can trust, via CSA, or farmers' markets, or just plain legwork. For example, I have located unimpeachable sources for grains, raisins, lemons, avocados, persimmons, teas, coffee, bread. Fresh vegetables I grow for myself, and others. Woody Wodraska--Seeking Common Ground CSA Honeoye Falls, NY woodyw@juno.com "The greatest fine art of the future will be the making of a comfortable living from a small piece of land." -A. Lincoln On Sun, 05 Oct 1997 10:20:01 -0500 "Susan K. Snow" writes: >Sal, >As an consumer of certified organic foods, what can I do to make sure >that the grains, beans, and produce that I buy, are free from >intentionally used manmade chemicals without the cost being passed on >to >the small grower, like yourself? > >Susan Snow > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe >sanet-mg". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 19:54:28 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA10179; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA06506; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:49:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id TAA11571 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id TAA11507 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from romeo.its.uwo.ca (romeo.its.uwo.ca [129.100.2.60]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id TAA08623 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:25:06 -0400 (EDT) From: dmcleod@julian.uwo.ca Received: from ts5-4.slip.uwo.ca by romeo.its.uwo.ca with SMTP id TAA20517; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710052325.TAA20517@romeo.its.uwo.ca> X-Sender: dmcleod@julian.uwo.ca (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Subject: Volunteers X-Mailer: Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 73 My wife and I have just finished a 21 month stint at the Kasisi Agriculture Training Centre at a Jesuit Mission in Zambia. I was involved in training staff in IPM and Sustainable Agriculture and set up and trained two Zambians to give workshops in SA. We gave 12, 3 and 5 day workshops to extensionists, primary school teachers and small scale farmers. My wife started and edited a newsletter for small scale farmers and worked with womens groups. I am a retired Entomologist with a number of years experience in IPM and SA. We are presently looking for volunteer positions in Central America or the Caribbean doing similar kinds of work. Any suggestions on where to look? TIA Glenn and Mary Jane McLeod To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 5 20:48:04 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA10555; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA17812; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id UAA06485 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id UAA06481 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pearl.mhtc.net (pearl.mhtc.net [208.135.157.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id UAA09859 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hh1122191.direcpc.com (plat-cas1-cs-33.dial.mhtc.net [156.46.19.163]) by pearl.mhtc.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/FNG) with ESMTP id TAA12690; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 19:02:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199710060002.TAA12690@pearl.mhtc.net> From: "D.B.Sullivan" To: "sal" Cc: Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 18:58:04 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 74 ---------- Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmersand handlers it was written: I am not asking for no regulations I am saying why burden the small farmer. Did you read =============Comment Next time you go to grocery store and ask to buy some produce ask if its fresh ask the seller would you sign a declaration form under penalty of perjury subject to jail Ask that car dealer the same.....Will the saleman who sells your next suit of clothes who tells you that you look good in them do the same. Unfortunately we have lost trust in fellow human being, and make it federal case out of organics for the small producer is stupid. It seem that the O word cannot be used in mixed company so to speak. These regs impose criminal sanctions on what should clearly be a civil issue. This reg is well beyond PC especially since the O word can only be used in a limited context. I cannot say that my O practice is better and I dont even think I can even describe what it is. Please let me know if this correct. The new regs are designed to let largest corporate interest access to premium prices and dilute standards......With growth rates of over 20 % big business wants a cut. So to speak if I was king , I would raise the exemption to the average wage in America. Establish minimum standards and allow others who have better to say so. Since I am NOT king , and we have no king it won't happen.............. For a small producer who uses O word and fails to follow all this bull (manure) could easily blow 5 years gross defending himself. For example say a small producer tells his customer exactly how he produces his food but uses a previous approved method that is later outlawed but explains again this his practices.... That farmer could face jail under this....Yet he didnt rape , rob, steal, lie or kill . Think of it when he is the big house , his fellow inmates will ask what you are in for " He will say I used the "O" word, and they will say "rape, murder, robbery" There will be some justice He will be probably put on a Farm Release Program.... Question Can I use the "S" word --Sustainable or is that a crime also ????? To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 00:07:54 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA12276; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA28329; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id XAA12596 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id XAA12537 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from adams.berk.net (root@adams.berk.net [205.230.140.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id XAA16958 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:24:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [208.224.73.68] (gb1ip8.bcn.net [208.224.73.68]) by adams.berk.net (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA08803 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:23:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: csana@bcn.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:24:42 +0100 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: csana@bcn.net (csana) Subject: N.E. Regional CSA Conference Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 75 NORTHEAST REGIONAL COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE CONFERENCE A FUTURE FOR FARMING IN THE NORTHEAST NOVEMBER 7-8, 1997 HANCOCK, MASSACHUSETTS Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is the mutually beneficial arrangement whereby farmers and members cooperate to grow and distribute food. CSA is a rapidly expanding approach to marketing produce and is one of the most dynamic innovations in small-scale agriculture today. For many farmers across the country, CSA has proven to be an effective way to maintain profitable, environmentally sound farms. CSA of North America, in partnership with Just Food, UMass Extension and Wilson College, is convening this conference to address the challenges to, and explore the potential for, creating and operating successful CSA farms. The conference's goals are to: Support the successful development of existing CSA farms Promote the establishment of new CSA farms Increase public awareness of the importance of regional agriculture and CSA Educate Extension and other USDA staff about CSA The conference is designed to maximize the opportunities for exchange among farmers, CSA members, Extension personnel and others. If you are interested in CSA, please come to share and learn from one another.
Workshops are divided into five categories focusing on different aspects of CSA. In addition to those categories, other topics will be
presented in informal round table discussions. Each panelist will speak for about ten minutes, leaving a full hour for participant discussion and interaction. CSA CROP PRODUCTION CROP PRODUCTION AND CSA ON SIX ACRES OR LESS Janet Britt, NY Dan Guenther, NY Carol Rees, VT Sam Smith, MA CROP PRODUCTION AND CSA ON SEVEN ACRES OR MORE Jean-Paul Courtens, NY Michael Docter, MA Jim Kinsel, NJ SOIL MANAGEMENT Scott Chaskey, NY Sam Smith, MA Bob Walker, NY CROP SELECTION AND PRODUCTION FOR BEGINNERS Seth Jacobs, NY Steve Moore, PA TBA (to be announced) SEED VARIETIES FOR CSA C.R. Lawn, ME Tom Stearns, VT MECHANICAL WEED CONTROL AND MAXIMIZING EFFICIENCY Linda Hildebrand, MA Arnold Voehringer, MA FARM SCALE AND CSA Michael Docter, MA Tim Sanford & Susan Long, VT TBA SHARED PRODUCTION: MULTIPLE-FARM CSA Alan Matthews, PA TBA CSA MARKETING MIXING CSA AND OTHER MARKET OUTLETS Martha Daughdrill, MD David DeWitt, NY Sam Reist, PA MARKETING OTHER PRODUCTS THROUGH CSA Jennifer Castle, NY Marcie Shemaria, NY TBA MARKETING CSA TO INSTITUTIONS John Bachman, NY Polly Hutchison, RI TBA FARM-STAND CSA Jan Goranson & Rob Johansen, ME Skip Paul, RI TBA CSA ADMINISTRATION STARTING A CSA/PANEL OF GROWERS John Clark, CT Bambi Jones, ME Woody Wodraska, NY ASSESSING AND SECURING AFFORDABLE FARMLAND Chuck Matthei, CT Kathy Ruhf, MA COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS Will Newman, OR Susan Witt & Bob Swann, MA BUSINESS AND MEMBERSHIP LEGAL STRUCTURES FOR CSA Bill Gold, NJ Herb Lorentzen, MA Will Newman, OR BUDGETS AND ACCOUNTING FOR FARMERS Jill Agnew, ME Dan Kaplan, MA APPRENTICE TRAINING Paul Bernackey, ME Shane LaBrake, MD Katie Smith, NY Al Thorpe, MA LABOR LAWS AND APPRENTICES Doug Bowne, NY Doug Jones, NY CSA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Bob Bowser, IL Deb Denome, NY Tony Ricci, PA LEGAL ISSUES OF FOOD HANDLING Leslie Zuck, PA TBA CSA MEMBERSHIP STARTING A CSA/PANEL OF MEMBERS Sarah Lincoln-Harrison, MA Peter Mann, NY Ann Reid, MA MEMBER RECRUITMENT Cynthia Barstow, MA Bob Bowser, IL Nancy Schauffler, NY CORE GROUP DEVELOPMENT John Clark, CT Donna Garde, NY Pat Mannix, NY BUDGETS AND ACCOUNTING FOR CORE GROUPS Richard Lincoln-Harrison, MA Sarah Milstein, NY TBA COMMUNICATING WITH YOUR MEMBERSHIP Stuart McCarty, NY John Peterson, IL Sue & Rich Sisti, NJ MEMBER EVENTS AND INVOLVEMENT Elizabeth Henderson, NY David Inglis, MA Elizabeth Smith, MA WORKING SHARES Melissa Carlson, NY Steve Gilman, NY TBA DIVERSIFYING YOUR MEMBERSHIP Alison Clarke, NY Kate Larson, VT Liz Wheeler, CT LONG-TERM MEMBER SATISFACTION Frank Scheib, NY Marianne Simmons, NY TBA OTHER CSA TOPICS COMMUNITY SUPPORTED ANYTHING Donna Karsch, NY Jean Giblette, NY TBA THE ECONOMICS OF CSA Dan Lass, MA Cathy Roth, MA Tom Earle, NH GROWER QUALITY OF LIFE Richard Wiswall, VT Seth Jacobs, NY TBA WOMEN AND CSA FARMING Jill Agnew, ME Sharon Carlson, DE Scout Proft, VT CONNECTING URBAN COMMUNITIES & CSA FARMS Sarah Milstein, NY Chris Yoder, MA TBA STUDENT-RUN CSA Bennington College, VT Hampshire College, MA Rutgers University, NJ Wilson College, pA FOOD BANK CSA Mike Gable, PA TBA CSA IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE Elizabeth Henderson, NY FARMS OF TOMORROW, REVISITED Trauger Groh, NH Steve McFadden, MD The conference will feature: DISPLAY AREA to exchange CSA farm literature. Bring copies of your brochure, newsletters, crop calendars, member handbooks and recipe books to share. PHOTO TABLE to display photos of your CSA and farm. Please bring along your album. RESOURCE AREA for organizations or individuals to display CSA materials. Contact Kathy Ruhf at (413) 323-4531 by Oct. 17. NOTICE BOARD for posting jobs, equipment for sale, etc. FAVORITE HAND TOOL SESSION. Bring a picture, description or example to share. ACTIVITIES: CSA REFLECTIONS BY TRAUGER GROH CSA PHOTO EXHIBIT BY CLEMENS KALISCHER POEMS and STORIES BY CSA FARMERS CSA FARM TOUR LOCAL, FARM-FRESH SEASONAL MEALS MUSIC and DANCING Conference Co-Sponsors: CSA of North America Just Food UMass Extension Wilson College Accokeek Foundation BioDynamic Farming and Gardening Association Cornell Cooperative Extension Hartford Food System Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association NE Sustainable Ag Working Group New England Small Farm Institute New England Cooperative Extension Consortium PA Association for Sustainable Ag UVM-Center for Sustainable Ag Women's Agricultural Network SCHEDULE Friday November 7 8:00 - 9:00 Continental Breakfast 9:00 - 10:15 Registration 10:15 - 11:00 Introductory Remarks 11:15 - 12:45 First Session 1:00 - 2:00 Lunch 2:15 - 3:45 Second Session 4:00 - 4:30 Reflections by Trauger Groh 4:45 - 6:15 Third Session 6:30 - 7:30 Dinner 8:00 - 10:30 Socialize, Music & dancing Tavern open Saturday November 8 8:00 - 8:45 Breakfast 9:00 - 9:15 Announcements 9:30 - 11:00 Fourth Session 11:15 - 12:45 Fifth Session 12:45 - 1:30 Lunch 1:45 - 3:15 Sixth Session 3:30 - 4:00 Closure and Move Forward REGISTRATION Registration for both days is $35-50, sliding scale. One-day registration for either day is $20-30. In order to facilitate planning, especially for meal preparation, PLEASE register by October 17, 1997. If you cannot do so but intend to come, call (413) 528-4374. SCHOLARSHIPS Money is available to help defray costs of registration and lodging. If you need assistance beyond what is offered in the sliding scale fees, see the registration form for instructions. FOOD To celebrate the bounty of Northeast agriculture, local, seasonal foods will be prepared at meals as available. Attending farmers will be given first chance at selling food to the conference. Call (413) 528-4374 by Oct. 5th. LODGING On-site lodging is available for $35 per night per person triple occupancy, $45 per person double and $90 single. Rooms include kitchenettes. Other lodging includes on-site condos for groups and off-site camping. Call for more information. CHILD CARE Supervised child care will be provided during workshop hours. Parents will be required to assist for two hours during the conference. A small fee may be required at the time of the conference. Registration forms are required by October 17th if you wish child care. VOLUNTEERS Please let us know if you can donate a few hours of your time during the conference to help with audio-visual equipment, child care, etc. SITE The conference is situated at the beautiful Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in the Berkshire region of western Massachusetts. The site provides ample conference facilities, tavern, heated pool and opportunities for outdoor activities including hiking and biking. DIRECTIONS >From the NORTH I-87, I-91, I-93 or I-95 south to I-90 and follow below directions from either the east or the west. >From the SOUTH Taconic Parkway North to Rt. 295 East. Rt. 22 North to Rt. 43 East. Four mi. on Rt. 43 to Brodie Mtn. Rd. Turn right. >From the EAST (Boston) I-90 (Mass Pike) West to Exit B-3 (Berkshire Spur section). Route 22 North to Rt. 43 East. Four mi. on Rt. 43 to Brodie Mtn. Rd. Turn right. >From the WEST (Albany) I-90 East to Exit 7. Left on Washington Ave. to Rt. 43 East. Continue about 25 mi. to the Jiminy Peak sign at Brodie Mtn. Rd. Turn right. REGISTRATION FORM NAME1_______________________________ NAME2_______________________________ FARM/ORG.____________________________ ST. ADDRESS___________________________ CITY_________________ST____ZIP________ PHONE______________FAX/eMAIL__________ Description Cost Number Total REGISTRATION Both days $35-50 Friday only $20-30 Saturday only $20-30 ON-SITE LODGING Single (Thursday night) $90 Double (Thursday night) $45 Triple (Thursday night) $35 Single (Friday night) $90 Double (Friday night) $45 Triple (Friday night) $35 MEALS Breakfast (Friday) $5 Lunch (Friday) $8 Dinner (Friday) $15 Breakfast (Saturday) $5 Lunch (Saturday) $8 Childrens meals are $3, $5 and $10 for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Do you require childcare. ______ List persons you have made arrangements with to share a room with on-site.__________________________________ Check if you can volunteer for a 2-hour session at the conference.___ Scholarship. Amount requested to defray costs of registration and lodging. _______ Make checks payable to: Laurie Cadorette, UMass Extension, 44 Bank Row, Pittsfield, MA 01201 If you have questions call Elizabeth or Jim 413-528-3474 or send us email at csana@bcn.net Elizabeth Keen CSA of North America 57 Jug End Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 (413) 528-4374 csana@bcn.net http://www.umass.edu/umext/CSA CSA West/ Community Supported Agriculture A Program of Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) PO Box 363 / Davis, California 95617 916-756-8518 / 916-756-7857 (fax) csawest@caff.org http://www.caff.org To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 00:10:21 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA12289; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:10:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA28827; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:05:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id XAA15179 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id XAA15148 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from telegraph.uwyo.edu ([129.72.60.11]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id XAA17041 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:31:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by telegraph.uwyo.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52) id <01BCD1D5.F8FB28A0@telegraph.uwyo.edu>; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:30:59 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Deborah D. Paulson" To: "'sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu'" Cc: "Deborah D. Paulson" Subject: organic labelling Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:30:57 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 76 I have been following the organic labelling discussion with interest. Unfortunately, I do not have much information on the certification program being proposed by USDA. I would like to hear again from Charles Benbrook, as he is one of the few that seems to understand the certification program and support it. I am one of those that lives in a place where it is long (ecologically questionable) drive to get to a place that sells locally produced food - i.e., it is hard to get most of my food from a grower I can get to know (I live in Laramie, WY). So, buying most of my food from Safeway, I have to look for organic labels - it's all I have to go on. I would like to see certification, but why at the federal level, why must it be by government instead of cooperatives or NGOs, and why the USDA, whom I don't have a lot of trust in? Why not a sliding scale for the charge on certification (or is there one with $250 being the low end)? The overseas trade argument isn't much of a case for supporting a humane scale of agriculture, if we care about that at all. And is Sal right that it would actually be a criminal offense to use words like organic or naturally grown without meeting certification requirements? Why can't they have a USDA seal of certification, if they must, for the large farms who need overseas markets, but allow the generic use of the word organic? I would appreciate answers to these questions from someone who generally supports the USDA certification process. Thanks, Deb Paulson Dept. of Geography and Recreation University of Wyoming debp@uwyo.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 00:46:34 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA13476; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA05702; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:41:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id AAA09321 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id AAA06664 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:05:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id AAA18236 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 00:05:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.48]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id XAA13965; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:09:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <34387090.66E2@acnet.net> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 23:01:04 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sal CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers References: <3.0.2.32.19971005041221.007b8410@rain.org> <3.0.2.32.19971005122634.007b2100@rain.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 77 I sympathize with your position but believe you're the one to do the job and get this changed. You don't need a law or science degree - you DO need to get people behind this. How do you think it came to be that all the commercial tunafish packers got on the band wagon so that fewer dolphins were killed? It was a grass roots mobilization. It's your decision but my point is that you have within your power the means to make YOUR point heard, respected and hopefully, acted on, and that no one else is in a better position to do so. YOU are being affected and have taken the trouble to say so. But when more than 100 people are involved in an issue, it gets beyond a town hall one man - one vote type of thing and becomes necessarily a "representitive democracy" which is NOT a democrasy. Some people who may NOT be knowledgeable are making decisions that affect others like yourself and everyone else who eats organic food or just plain cares about the issue. I'm trying to be constructive in relation to your postings but if you don't buy it, I won't bother mentioning this again. But I do hope SOMEONE who's as involved as you are does what's needed, because the thing IS out of control so just grap the god damn wheel - unless you'd rather just bitch about it. You can probably get people to pitch in and help you spread the word, make phone calls, collect signatures, send out letters, e-mail and help you get grants for all that. So go for it. Sez me! sal wrote: > > At 11:53 AM 10/5/97 -0600, Douglas Hinds wrote: > >sal wrote: > >> > >> It has been said of me that I sound angry.I am > > > >It is clear to me that you raise valid points that should be presented > >to a concerned public. Since you are the one that sees and feels these > >things things (I myself am out of the U.S. most of the time and am not > >presently farming in the U.S. so you are certainly taking the heat more > >I am, for instance), you are the logical one to provide the leadership > >needed to drive these points home to the people in policy making > >positions. > > that is my whole point !organic growing is now a political football and it > is in the hands for those folks that play the political game the best not > me I only know how to farm organic. . I have enough problems now. I have > all ready made the certifiers,inspectors and USDA mad at me. Good let them > know what every organic growers feels every day . Mistrust ! That is what > they show me and I am a mirror so I mistrust them sameway. and it is not > for any wrong they have done or that I have done/ . I like my certifier > and have for years but they are busy saving their own rear ends. They have > to fight for every inch and they don't seem to mind sacrificing the small > farmers money to get their way. They sold us out trying to save us. The > inspectors are not going to ask that the farmer not pay because they get > their pay from us. you see all these folks that are supposed to be > representing us now have to represent themselfs. And the state and the > government say they know there needs to be regulations but who will pay for > it and our own certifiers and others in the movement say get it from the > farmer who grows organic . I say WRONG So I have to say please don't > speak for me anymore as you seem to have walked all over me and I put my > trust in you all and supported you all for years and you left me holding > the bag. This is not what organic growing is about. They were supposed > to be our mouth peace and they have done a bad job as it is the organic > farmer that has to pay for this whole deal . Most small farmers are not > into politics and now organic growing is a political football. I think the > public comment is > Bull shit and that we organic growers have already been hung up to dry. I > have seen enough public comments to know its a lot of noise signifying > nothing. The USDA is going to do what they want no matter what. They own > all the words. It is their agenda and they have the guns. You need a law > degree and a science degree just to talk to them. They don't have hearts > they don't care about morals or religion or even ethics .they don't mind > oppressing the poor .Just look they made the small farmer thing only $5000 > every one that makes over that small amount is fair game for a tax. And it > is not just one tax you have to pay off a whole lot of folks. If you > cannot afford to pay off all these folks you are out of bussiness. You > cannot reason with people like this. The only thing they know is "Show me > the money." They don't want to see signatures they want to see the > money!!!. The USDA says they want to help the small farmer yet in the same > year they make up a special tax to drop right on them and them alone. Help > like this I don't need. > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 11:06:48 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA27698; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:06:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA17471; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA28141 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA28052 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:34:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA08540 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:34:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s11.term1.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.141]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA11997; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971006073404.007b2c50@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 07:34:04 -0700 To: smallfarm-outgoing@maat.reeusda.gov From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <34387090.66E2@acnet.net> References: <3.0.2.32.19971005041221.007b8410@rain.org> <3.0.2.32.19971005122634.007b2100@rain.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 78 First let me say I am a organic grower and not a public speaker. So forgive my crudness. I know about the cost now I want the benefits. The National Organic Standards Board has received many comments from the public on the subject of pesticide drift onto organic farms. In addition, discussion and debate of the drift issue at the May 1993 NOSB meeting clearly indicated that the majority of NOSB members think that pesticide drift incidents should be handled in the same manner as the NOSB Draft Recommendation for government emergency pest eradication programs. The above statement is a joke. If the USDA has the right to tax the organic farmer and make him jump through all these hoops then they should give up their right to government emergency pest accreditation programs on the organic farmer. It's not right that organic farmer works for years to make himself fully organic and late one night the government can come and spray his crop . It is the organic farmer that need protection. How USDA can tax the organic farmer year after year after year and yet they're still allowed to spray them with the insecticide? . Also the USDA must label genetically engineered life form that may make it way into organic farms or processors or handlers so that the poor organic folks will be able to tell the USDA DNA altered life from non Frankenstein natural life forms . Organic food is so important that there is a tax on the organic farmer and policeman checks his land, and makes him jump through hoops for the sake of the consumer then government has no right to ever ever ever ever spray them with any chemicals The National Organic Standards (NOSB) requests that the Secretary recommend to Congress that certified organic producers who incur crop losses and/or market losses caused by pesticide or fertilizer drift or misapplication be eligible for reimbursements from Federal crop disaster programs or Federal crop insurance programs for all damages and expenses incurred. Such eligibility should only apply in situations where the drift incident or misapplication occurs as the result of actions of a person who is not the certified organic producer or a person working under the direction of the certified organic producer. If USDA or the state sprays organic farmer he destroys the balance that the farmers has been building up for years and years he cannot be compensate by paying for the loss of a crop or two. His lively is destroyed and years and years of his work and the work of nature has been destroyed and the balance that he has been working on is gone. How can they have to nerve to tax us and make us jump through hoops and still be allowed to spray us? If you sign up to be registered organic you are giving away your right to protest being sprayed. You are telling the world yeah spray me just pay me for the crops I can not sell organic . Well this is not all the cost of a spray one organic land . You have before hand agreed to be spray by signing up. It is a trap. The public needs protection from the USDA not from the organic farmers. If I sign up I should at least get a guarantee that the Government will not spray me for any reason without my permission. Also Cal trans and other road people must not be permitted to spray the road by me and farmers living around me must not be allowed to spray if it may land on my farm. If the farmer has to give up so much in cash and burdens then the same USDA must see to it that there is no over drift and there is no government sparying! I have been farming organic for over 18 years so who ever sprays me should pay me for the next 18 years just to get back to even after the spray. and should also pay me for the 18 years of my life I loose because one night the same USDA and/or some STATE that taxes me sprays me. If I have to pay protection money then protect me from the state sprayers and the USDA sprayers. Protect the organic farmer so he can sell his product as organic. I think the organic farmer is paying and not getting protection from all this shit. I can go on and on. But you get the idea. Also the organic food processors has to know what enzymes are genetically engineered because we have to know to be able to make organic food stuff. The USDA should also label genetic engineered all life forms that may make it way in too the organic food lineup. In fact the USDA should not release any DNA altered life forms that may for any reason enter the organic food chain. We must protect organic food. That should be added to the test for gene altered life form releases (can the life form contaminate the organic food chain.) The USDA must label genetic engineered life so that the organic farmer can avoided them. It is the USDA and the state that take my protection money so they must protect me. It is the USDA and the state that the people who want organic food need protection from not the organic farmer. They must label so that we can label. People want organic food without USDA approved pesticide, funguside,herbicide,etc. so the USDA must see to it that organic is organic and that means they must watch their own selfs because they are the comtamanators. The organic farmer needs protection in order to give the people organic food. This bill does nothing to protect the organic farmer from the state or the federal government from all those that will contaminate him. -------------------------The USDA must label DNA altered life forms so that the organic farmer and processor can label organic. The USDA must never spray or contaminate an organic farm. The USDA must clean up the organic farmers water supply. The USDA must clean up the air around the organic farmer. The USDA must protect organic food from any contamination if they truly want to give the people organic clean food. Until then get off my back and out of my pocket. The USDA has a lot of work in front of them to give the people organic clean safe food and they should not start by taxing and burdening the poor organic farmer that is doing no wrong. I will say it again . An organic grower should not have to pay 1 cent extra to grow and sell crops as organic if they are. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 12:55:52 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA29692; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA14458; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id MAA02004 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:23:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id MAA01999 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:23:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mhub1.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub1.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.51]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id MAA12934 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:23:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maroon.tc.umn.edu by mhub1.tc.umn.edu; Mon, 6 Oct 97 11:23:25 -0500 Received: from [128.101.74.31] by maroon.tc.umn.edu; Mon, 6 Oct 97 11:23:25 -0500 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: "Scott John Josiah" Subject: LIVING SNOW FENCE SYMPOSIUM Reply-To: Scott J Josiah Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:23:46 X-Tick-Nemesis: Chairface Chippendale MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <3439107d0bbe019@mhub1.tc.umn.edu> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 79 ----- Forwarded Message Starts Here ----- From: josia001@maroon.tc.umn.edu Date: Fri, 3 Oct 97 09:20:07 -0500 To: Temperate Agroforestry forum. Subject: LIVING SNOW FENCE SYMPOSIUM LIVING SNOW FENCE SYMPOSIUM Presented by Lake Superior College and the MINNESOTA INTERAGENCY LIVING SNOW FENCE TASK FORCE October 29 & 30, 1997 Radisson Arrowwood, Alexandria MN "We cannot keep it from snowing; we can influence the wind that carries tons of blowing and drifting snow." SPONSORS State Agencies - Board of Water and Soil Resources, Department of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Emergency Management, Department of Agriculture, and the University of Minnesota Center for Integrated Natural Resources and Agricultural Management. Local Entities - The Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the Minnesota Association of Conservation District employees. Federal Agencies - Federal Emergency Management Agency, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and USDA Forest Service. OBJECTIVES Learn how snow moves and forms drifts. Learn how to control blowing and drifting snow. Learn the many benefits of living snow fences and community shelterbelts. Learn what tools are available to help you implement a living snow fence and community shelterbelt program. WHY ATTEND You will learn how to reduce snow plowing costs dramatically. You will learn howto save on home heating costs and promote energy conservation within your community. WHO SHOULD ATTEND Community and City leaders, County Commissioners, Administrators Planning and Zoning officials, Highway Engineers, Soil & Water Conservation District staff and board members, Watershed District staff, managers, and members, Department of Natural Resources Forestry, Parks and Wildlife staff, Mn/DOT District & Maintenance Engineers, Right of Way agents, Maintenance Superintendents, SubAreasupervisors and snow plow operators, University of Minnesota Extension agents, Minnesota Department of Agriculture staff, Natural Resource Conservation Service staff, Conservation groups, Township officers, interested citizens, and Federal and State legislators and staff. AGENDA Day 1 - October 29: Moderated by Roger Ledding, Former Chief of the Minnesota State Highway Patrol 10-10:05 a.m. - Announcements 10:05-10:15 - Welcome 10:15-10:45 - Lessons Learned from the Winter of 96-97 10:45-11:15 - Snow Control Challenges and Opportunities Across the Minnesota Landscape 11:15-11:45 - Northern Plains Weather Facts 11:45-Noon - Question and Answer Session Noon-1:15 - Lunch 1:15-2:45 - How Snow Moves and Forms Drifts 2:45-3:15 - Break 3:15-4:45 - Design & Function of Living Snow Fences 4:45-5 - Question and Answer Session 5-6 - Mixer 6-7 - Sit-down Dinner 7-7:30 - A Legislative Perspective on Living Snow Fences 7:30-8:30 - Sharing of Past Winter Experiences (audience participation) Day 2 - October 30: Moderated by Roger Ledding, Former Chief of the Minnesota State Highway Patrol 7:30-8 a.m. - Coffee & Rolls 8-8:30 - Community Shelterbelt Design and Benefits 8:30-9:30 - Planting and Maintaining a Windbreak 9:30-10 - Break 10-10:40 - Programs Available for Implementing a Living Snow Fence Program 10:40-11:55 - Local Area Initiatives 11:55-Noon - The Charge To obtain a registration form or further information, call Fred Lyon at 218/733-5918 or 1/800/432-2884 Lake Superior College 2101 Trinity Road Duluth MN 55811 Phone: (218) 733-7600 or 1-800-432-2884 URL:http://www.lsc.cc.mn.us/library/snofence.htm ----- Forwarded Message Ends Here ----- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 13:33:03 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA01375; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:33:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA25545; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:28:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id MAA19973 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id MAA19966 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:59:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from UNLVM.UNL.EDU (unlvm.unl.edu [129.93.200.1]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id MAA14086 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:59:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:59:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PMURRAY.UNL.EDU (129.93.224.80) by UNLVM.UNL.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4) with TCP; Mon, 06 Oct 97 11:57:42 CDT Message-Id: <2.2.16.19971006115559.4aa74714@unlvm.unl.edu> X-Sender: csas001@unlvm.unl.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, news@psupena.psu.edu From: Pam Murray Subject: September-October 1997 CSAS Newsletter Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by luna.oit.unc.edu id NAA01375 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 80 September-October 1997 CSAS Newsletter The Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems (CSAS) in the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) is an interdisciplinary center formed in 1991 for the purpose of bringing together people and resources to promote an agriculture that is efficient, competitive, profitable, environmentally and socially sustainable for the indefinite future. The electronic version of this bimonthly newsletter is sent to SANET and PENPages 10-14 days before those on our mailing list receive their hard copy. The newsletters are also available along with other sustainable ag information on our World Wide Web page: http://ianrwww.unl.edu/ianr/csas Note: The electronic version is not sent to individual e-mail addresses. To be added to the "hard copy" newsletter mailing list beginning with the next bimonthly issue (not sent to overseas addresses), or for questions or comments, contact the newsletter editor, Pam Murray, Coordinator, Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, PO Box 830949, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0949, 402-472-2056, fax -4104, e-mail: csas001@unlvm.unl.edu. * * * CONTENTS: LINKING ECOLOGY AND AGRICULTURE TO INCREASE SUSTAINABILITY CALIFORNIA SALAD AND AUSTRALIAN EMU IN NEBRASKA? THE STATE OF RURAL AMERICA: WE CAN CHOOSE OUR FUTURE SEEKING K-16 CURRICULUM VOLUNTEERS IMPACT PROJECT DEADLINES RESOURCES DID YOU KNOW... COMING EVENTS * * * LINKING ECOLOGY AND AGRICULTURE TO INCREASE SUSTAINABILITY Natural ecosystems supply many valuable services and products to humans, for example, clean air, clean water, and biodiversity as well as a place to grow crops and livestock. As natural systems, they do not provide agricultural commodities of the types and amounts needed by humans, so we have changed many of them into agroecosystems to maximize production of food and fiber. What is it about an ecosystem that lets it function year after year using only solar energy without degrading the resource base, while farms and ranches require high fossil energy inputs and suffer from soil erosion and water contamination? This question was explored at three workshops co-sponsored by the North Central Sustainable Agriculture Training Program (NCSATP). Linking People, Purpose, and Place: An Ecological Approach to Agriculture was held in Wooster, Ohio; Manhattan, Kansas; and Morris, Minnesota. The purpose was to demonstrate how an understanding of ecological principles can help us design farms that provide commodities while retaining some of the beneficial processes of natural systems. Because agroecosystems include people, another goal was to explore characteristics of local communities that increase sustainability. The first step toward identifying useful ecological principles is to describe the structure and function of pre-settlement ecosystems within a particular region. Introductions at the workshops gave an overview of the natural ecosystems in Ohio, Kansas, and Minnesota and of the agroecosystems that have taken their place. In Kansas, Bonnie Lynn-Sherow, an environmental historian, emphasized the importance of human's part in nature by explaining the five roles the Konza Prairie Research Natural Area (KPRNA) has played for Native Americans, farmers, ranchers, scientists, and recreationists. KPRNA was established to provide an outdoor laboratory for the study of ecological processes in a tallgrass prairie. We saw firsthand the differences in vegetation caused by cattle or bison grazing and fire sequences. The next day we compared the native ecosystem with a cattle ranch agroecosystem. The Hubbard family runs almost 2,000 head of steers and cow-calf pairs on 6,000 acres. As with KPRNA, they also use rotational grazing and fire as management tools. Agroecology was another central topic. Richard Harwood and Richard Olson described how understanding the ecology of a place can lead to practices that are more profitable, more energy and nutrient efficient, and less environmentally disruptive. To effectively manage the biology of agricultural systems, we must understand: - the relationship among ecosystem structure and key processes, such as nutrient cycling, water use, and soil biology; - which processes can be directly managed and which cannot, such as carbon turnover versus photosynthesis, and how managing the processes affects productivity; - the importance of plant diversity and the amount and duration of plant rooting; - the concepts of habitat, both within the landscape and in the soil. Evaluating soil quality was a popular activity at the workshops. Using a mini version of the USDA-ARS soil test kit, participants measured infiltration rates, soil nitrate-nitrogen, organic matter, and depth to compact soil strata. In Minnesota, they sampled soils in CRP plots and tilled plots of corn or soybeans. Many embraced the hands-on approach as a way to quickly learn how cultivation practices affect soil structure. Indoor sessions, with topics on weed management and ecological principles of grazing, complemented the extensive farm visits. Farmers and ranchers described how they matched their production systems with weather patterns, soil, vegetation, and markets. For example, the Hartzler family owns and operates five dairy farms that produce milk for the family-owned processing plant and retail store. Joe and Jean Hartzler farm 125 acres with intensive grazing on 35 acres. Their new retail dairy was the first one built in Ohio in 30 years. After the field tour, we visited the processing plant where milk is pasteurized, but not homogenized, and bottled in glass containers. Participants sampled 18 of the 30 available flavors of ice cream! One of the guiding principles of NCSATP is that training must be inclusive, both in terms of trainers and learners. This year our audience background expanded to include instructors from private colleges, college students, a scientist with a large argochemical company, and representatives from the National Agroforestry Center. According to the evaluations, participants indicated they would use ecological principles in helping clients design farming systems and consider the social implications. One Extension educator wrote, "I always felt a connection to natural resources, but my path seemed to put me in ag and crops. Now, I see that it is feasible to combine them without losing respect and profitability. It will be a goal to try and bring this information to my county." Submitted by Heidi Carter, Richard Olson, Charles Francis CALIFORNIA SALAD AND AUSTRALIAN EMU IN NEBRASKA? What do multi-variety green salad mix and emu steaks have in common? This unique association was the focus of a recent field day on "Growing and Marketing Specialty Crops" that brought over 50 people to view some of Nebraska's more unique commercial enterprises. Although unlikely to replace thousands of acres of corn and soybeans, these alternative enterprises do represent a creative approach to nurturing and meeting new markets. As people travel and read, they become aware of new foods and diversified adventures in living -- this is an opportunity for agriculture! We had a chance to see these enterprises on an August 9 tour. Kevin and Charuth Loth moved to Lincoln three years ago after an extended experience in diversified California agriculture. One of the unique products they found popular there was a green salad mix, one that included a wide range of leafy vegetables tossed together with what most of us recognize as traditional leaf lettuce. As this product began to arrive in Nebraska, packaged in plastic and at least one week old when it reached the consumer, the Loths decided there was a market for fresh salad mix from a local source. "This has been our signature product," Kevin said at the recent field day. He added, "The price may seem high, and some weeks the available components make the mix a little spicy, but you can add this to another source of lettuce or eat it straight for a special culinary experience." In their well-planned and carefully kept four acres, an irrigation system and planned rotation is slowly taking shape. "It's really a lot of work, with long days and too many things to do on some days. But seeing everyone here today, hearing their compliments, makes it seem more worthwhile," added Charuth. They also grow cucurbits, flowers, and heritage vegetables for farmers' markets in Lincoln and Omaha as well as for area restaurants. A more exotic enterprise and hobby is one enjoyed by Phil and Janiece Goin of Hickman: Australian emus. Well adapted to both summer and winter extremes in weather, these foreign birds seem adjusted as they pace and run around several pens and field shelters on the Goin farm. Ready for slaughter after one year, and for breeding after four years, these exotic critters provide meat, oil, skins, eggshells, breeding stock, and continuous entertainment for the Goins and their frequent visitors. You need to try emu steaks, summer sausage, or "dogs" to appreciate the unique flavor of the meat. One special product is the oil, about 5 liters from a mature adult, that brings $200-300/gallon on today's market and is used for a wide range of medicinal remedies. Any problems with diseases or predators? "The veterinarian told us they were perfectly healthy here, and I'd like to see a coyote get into the pen. I think they would defend themselves very well, based on the kicks they give me once in awhile," Phil said. The Goins currently have over 100 emus, and sell meat, oil, and eggshells at the farmers' market. Should you raise salad greens or emus? Probably not. But should you consider creative alternatives to current commodity crops? These Nebraskans are showing us how innovative ideas and thoughtful promotion can broaden our agricultural product base and do well in an increasingly sophisticated marketplace. The key is to find a unique niche, to provide a consistent and quality product, and to enjoy working with the public. These adventuresome people are showing that it can be done. The tour was co-sponsored by the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society, Lincoln Farmers Market, Lancaster County Cooperative Extension, and CSAS. Submitted by Charles Francis and Larry Cutforth THE STATE OF RURAL AMERICA: WE CAN CHOOSE OUR FUTURE Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs* The family farm and rural decline that we see around us are not inevitable. They are the result of decisions made by people, that can be reversed by people — with the right combination of community initiative, passion, citizen involvement, and perseverance. We are facing formidable challenges in realizing the long-held values of rural America — the belief that community matters; that hard work deserves a fair reward; that wealth and power should be widely distributed; that ownership and control should belong to those who work the land and operate businesses; and that we are all responsible to our neighbors and future generations to be careful stewards of the environment. We're told by experts that family farms can't compete and rural communities can't survive. They say we can't have economic opportunity without sacrificing environmental quality and accepting growing inequality and concentration of wealth and power. In essence, they say we have no choice about our future. That is simply not true. It will only become true if we resign ourselves to it! Unquestionably, we are in the midst of great economic concentration that is exacting a toll. But it need not be permanent. We can reverse the family farm decline and economic concentration, but we must see our work not as saving family farms and rural communities as we have known them, but as rebuilding them for the future. We must start now to shape the next wave of change in rural America, and usher in a new generation of family farms and small businesses to ensure that one generation into the future, people will be asking not whether family farms can survive, but whether the plodding corporate Goliaths can compete with lean, well managed, socially responsible small enterprise. We can build on the strengths of entrepreneurship, citizenship, and civic commitment. Key strategies include: - Foster small scale entrepreneurship, on and off the farm, with capital, education, and community support. Over half the nation's net new jobs come from small enterprises with five or fewer employees. We must nurture their establishment by providing capital, business training, and education. - Alter the direction of change in agriculture technology through new research initiatives. Too much agricultural research has focused on finding ways for farmers to spend more money to produce on a large scale. If there is to be a future for family farms, we must instead develop systems that enable farmers to use more of their management and skills to reduce the need for capital expenditures and to produce products of higher value. Only then will farmers receive a larger share of the consumer dollar for what they do to produce food. USDA, the land grant colleges, and other public institutions control almost half of all agriculture research. We must hold them accountable to serve the public good and partner with family farmers and rural communities in research and education. - Establish new markets that reward stewardship and support family farms. Commodity markets are biased against family size farms, but family farmers who practice sustainable agriculture have some potential offsetting advantages. Over half of American consumers are willing to pay some premium for food produced in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. We must build new marketing institutions that reward environmental stewardship and support family-size farms. -Reform public policy to support small enterprise and reward stewardship. Much in public policy is biased toward bigness. We need to reverse that bias at the state and federal level, in both farm and rural development policy. Conservation provisions of the 1996 farm bill demonstrate that committed citizens with an idealistic vision can change public policy to support environmental stewardship. We must reform policy to support opportunity, fairness, and small enterprise. The question we face today is whether we will pass to future generations an economic system that provides ordinary people that same opportunity to own and control the land and businesses they work, improve their lives, build communities, and define their own destinies. Or will we pass to the next generation a system more akin to the feudel system our ancestors left behind, wherein a few own and control everything and all others work for them? There is not much question that most rural people would choose the former. Our challenge is to come together to exercise that choice. *Source: Article in Center for Rural Affairs Newsletter, Sept. 1997, containing remarks by Chuck Hassebrook at the CRA annual meeting in Augut. Condensed by Charles Francis SEEKING K-16 CURRICULUM VOLUNTEERS The Center for Rural Affairs is developing a National Sustainable Agriculture Curriculum Guide for grades K-16, and is seeking volunteers from across the country to serve on the task force of teachers helping to develop the guide and/or provide materials. Contact Martin Kleinschmit, 402-254-6893. IMPACT PROJECT DEADLINES The Nebraska Ag IMPACT Project is accepting applications for new groups and projects for 1998. Technical and financial assistance are available to groups of farmers, ranchers, or community members with projects that address farm productivity and profitability, resource conservation, environmental and health protection, and support of rural communities. Application deadlines are November 7, 1997 and February 27, 1998. Contact IMPACT offices at Hartington (402-254-2289) or Sidney (308-254-3918) for application materials or information. RESOURCES Steel in the Field: A Farmer's Guide to Weed Control Tools. $18. New book describes in detail 37 tools and 17 accessories, and includes supplier contacts, tool price ranges, resource lists, clear illustrations and farmer narratives about integrating the tools into sustainable cropping systems. Addresses the four main concerns that farmers have about mechanical weed control: cost, effectiveness, dependability and soil impact. Book project was funded by the Sustainable Agriculture Network. Sustainable Agriculture Publications, Hills Building, U. of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405-0082, 802-656-0471, msimpson@zoo.uvm.edu. Source Book of Sustainable Agriculture. $12 (call 802-656-0471 or e-mail msimpson@zoo.uvm.edu for bulk discounts). Lists 559 resource materials covering the vast breadth of agriculture, from how to market sustainably grown vegetables to locating the latest sustainable research findings on the World Wide Web. Covers print, electronic and video resources and contact information to order them. Sustainable Agriculture Publications (see above). Part-time Farming, Small Farms, and Small-scale Farming in the United States; Direct Marketing and Related Topics; and Compost: Application and Use. Publications in the Quick Bibliography Series. USDA, National Agricultural Library, Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Beltsville, MD 20705-2351, 301-504-6559, afsic@nal.usda.gov, http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program 1997 Project Highlights. Free. Report describes SARE-funded projects that show management-intensive grazing is more profitable for producers and better for the environment. Several SARE grants are funding research in shifting from confinement-based livestock systems to raising cows, sheep and hogs on pastures. Also highlighted in the report are articles on Community Supported Agriculture, the benefits of pasturing hogs, and several other research and on-farms projects. Valerie Berton, SARE Communications Specialist, 0322 Symons Hall, U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, 301-405-5270, vberton@wam.umd.edu Free-Range Poultry Production, Processing and Marketing. $39.50 + $4.50 s&h. Guidebook describes innovative way to raise pountry on range and market meat and eggs. Method differs from model used by Salatin in that chickens are not confined in pens, but range about 100 feet from their portable houses. Developed by producer with six years of free-range poultry experience, with the help of a SARE grant. Back Forty Books, 26328 Locust Grove Rd, Creola, OH 45622. Biodiversity and Human Health, 1997. $29.95 + shipping. Presents compilation of papers which analyze human health consequences of biodiversity loss from variety of perspectives, including agroecology, public health, biology, epidemiology, demography and pharmacology. Explores causes of biodiversity loss, effects of its loss on agroecosystems, and significance of biodiversity-derived medicines and biodiversity-dependent health systems. Discusses threats from pesticides and role of agricultural diversity in sustainable agriculture. Island Press, 24850 East Lane, PO Box 7, Covelo, CA 95428, 707-983- 6432, e-mail: ipwest@igc.org. The National Agroforestry Center has several informational/educational materials, including newsletters, technical note series, brochures, booklets, and videos. Most are free or available for loan. You can request an order form listing what is available from: Clover Shelton, NAC/USDA Forest Service/NRCS, East Campus - UNL, Lincoln, NE 68583-0822, 402-437-5712. The NAC also has a new Web page: http://www.unl.edu/nac. Environmental Health Threats to Children, 1996. Free. U.S. EPA report summarizes threats to children's health from environmental toxins, including pesticides, lead and drinking water contaminants. Describes EPA's agenda for protecting children and recommends actions, including areas of research, national policy and education. National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242, 800-490-9198, or 513-489-8190. Making World Agriculture More Sustainable. $30 + s&h. Edited by J. Patrick Madden and Scott G. Chaplowe. World Sustainable Agriculture Association embarked upon a project to highlight notable organizations promoting sustainable agriculture throughout the world. The 650-page book contains more than 60 organization profiles, ranging from international NGOs to grassroots organizations, and describes their efforts to make agriculture more sustainable. Concludes with a directory of 141 organizations whose work supports the cause of sustainable agriculture, a Glossary of key terms, and a detailed Subject Index.WSAA Publications, 8554 Melrose Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90069, 310-657-7202, email: WSAA@compuserve.com. What's In A Name: Eco-Labeling In The Global Food System. Paper presented by Elizabeth Barham, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, at the Joint Meetings of Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society, June 1997. Examines the emerging clashes between corporations and eco-labeling proponents as reflective of a larger struggle to moderate the effects of global market liberalization on consumers, producers and environment. Copies available free via e-mail by contacting meb6@cornell.edu. Hard copies available for $7.50 each by writing Elizabeth Barham, 133 Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. Midwest Biological Control News. $12/yr hard copy, free online. Monthly newsletter dedicated to providing information on the use of beneficial organisms for controlling insect and mite pests of the farm, garden, and home. Articles of valid biological control information are welcome, but final selection and editing are the responsibility of the editorial staff. Web page has many links to other biological control sites. Dept. of Entomology, U. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, 608-262-9914 or 262-9959, smahr@entomology.wisc.edu, http://www.wisc.edu/entomology/mbcn/mbcn.html. IPMnet NEWS is a free electronic Integrated Pest Management information source focused on economic, environmentally-attuned approaches to managing weeds, plant diseases, insects, nematodes, and vertebrate pests. Now in its fourth year, this service is designed to provide balanced, worldwide "news-you-can-use" to those concerned with IPM development, research, implementation, adoption, policy, and impact. It is sponsored by the not-for-profit Consortium for International Crop Protection comprised of 10 U.S. land grant universities, the University of Puerto Rico, and the USDA. The monthly newsletter can be subscribed to for automatic e-mailing, or you can access it and other information at the Web page: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/cicp/IPMnet_NEWS/news.html Nebraska Vine Lines. Free. Edited by Paul Read, professor of horticulture at UNL. Contains news of people and developments in the grape/wine industry in Nebraska. Plans are to publish monthly. Dept. of Horticulture, U. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0724, 402-472-2854. Emerging Markets for Family Farms: Opportunities to Prosper Through Social and Environmental Responsibility. $7. Report describes strategies for farmers to market high-value products. Center for Rural Affairs, PO Box 406, Walthill, NE 68067-0406, 402-846-5428. Tough to Swallow: How Pesticide Companies Profit by Poisoning America's Tap Water. $20. Presents findings of study on herbicides in tap water in midwestern states. Environmental Working Group, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009, 202-667-6982, info@ewg.org, http://www.ewg.org. Watershed Currents. Free via e-mail. Contains news, events and resources about watershed organizing. Send e-mail to majordomo@igc.apc.org. Leave subject blank. In body of message type subscribe water-net. Send questions to mmuller@iatp.org. Small Farm Digest. Free. Merger of former Small Scale Agriculture Today and Small and Part Time Farms. Quarterly newsletter for small farm managers with updates on farm related trends and developments, reviews of recent publications, and announcements of upcoming events. (If you were on the mailing list for the Small Scale Agriculture Today or Small and Part Time Farms, you will automatically get a copy of this.) Small Farm Digest, USDA-CSREES, Stop 2220, Washington, DC 20250, llewis@reeusda.gov. SMALLFARM-MG listserve. Identifies small farm contacts, farmers, and others in the public and private sectors who are interested in strengthening the capacity of small- and mid-size farmers to improve their income levels through a systems approach to addressing the needs of the small farm community. To subscribe, send msg to: majordomo@reeusda.gov. Leave subject blank. In body type: subscribe smallfarm-mg. Conference Proceedings: Agricultural Production and Nutrition. $18 prepaid. Collection of 21 papers from international conference held in Boston in March 1997, edited by William Lockeretz. Explores all facets of how nutritional value of food is affected by the way it was produced. Covers biological and chemical aspects of nutrition and food quality, as well as consumers' perceptions, marketing channels, and economic considerations. Several papers discuss implications for national and international food and nutrition strategies. Agriculture & Nutrition Conference, School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, WLockeretz@infonet.tufts.edu. 1997 National Organic Directory. $44.95 + $6 s&h. Annually updated "yellow pages" of the organic industry. Includes 1,000+ listings of farmers, wholesalers, farm suppliers, support businesses, certification groups and resource groups. Organic commodities bought and sold are extensively indexed, and explanations of state and federal organic laws are provided. Community Alliance with Family Farmers, PO Box 363, Davis, CA 95617, 1-800-852-3832, nod@caff.org, http://www.caff.org. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program (ATTRA) invites you to join in celebrating its 10th Anniversary by visiting its new Web site at http://www.attra.org. Labels: Linking Consumers and Producers. Free. Monthly electronic newsletter from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). Provides news, events and resources related to the labeling of products for environmental, social and regional sustainability. To subscribe, send e-mail to: majordomo@igc.apc.org. Leave subject blank. In body type: subscribe label-news. For help contact Kathryn Clements, kclements@iatp.org. Also available, along with IATP news bulletins, at http://www.sustain.org/bulletins. DID YOU KNOW... - The New York Times bought a share of Threshold Farm Community Supported Agriculture and writes periodically about the CSA project. - The July 21, 1997 edition of the Los Angeles Times carried an article about sustainable agriculture entering the mainstream, stating that the movement now includes approximately 5% of U.S. farmers who use sustainable practices. - In June 1997, Swissair announced that it was introducing organically grown products in all classes on flights departing from Switzerland. By the year 2000, Swissair's goal is to ensure that 90% of the products used to prepare meals are organically grown. - Presenting congratulations on the 25th anniversary of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movemements (IFOAM), director of Greenpeace International Dr. Thilo Bode called organic farming one of the world's most sophisticated and serious visions of sustainability. COMING EVENTS Contact CSAS office for more information. 1997 Nov. 2-6 — 3rd North American Workshop of Farming Systems Research & Extension Association - Food & Natural Resource Systems: Integrating Diversity, Inquiry, & Action, Mt. Hood, OR Nov. 7 — 5th Annual Small Farm Trade Show & Conference, Columbia, MO Dec. 1-4 — 3rd IFOAM-Asia Scientific Conference - Food Security in Harmony with Nature, Bangalore, India 1998 Jan. 9-10 — Great Plains Vegetable Conference, St. Joseph, MO Jan. 22-25 — Southern SAWG Annual Conference & Trade Show, Memphis, TN Jan. 30 — 17th Annual Organic Conference and Eco-Products Trade Show, Ontario, Canada http://www.gks.com/OrgConf/ Feb. 10-12 — Managing Manure in Harmony with the Environment and the Society," Ames, IA Feb. 26-28 — No. American Farmers' Direct Marketing Assoc. Conference, Victoria, BC http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/agric/nafdmc/dfmchome.htm Mar. 5-6 — National SARE Conference - Building on a Decade of Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education: Sharing Experiences to Improve Our Agriculture, Austin, TX http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/san/ Mar. 29-Apr. 1 — 1998 North American Conference on Pesticide Spray Drift Management, Portland, ME http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/drift/ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 14:02:14 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA02029; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA04010; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:57:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id NAA12018 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id NAA11963 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (wvnvm.wvnet.edu [129.71.2.4]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id NAA16307 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU by WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4104; Mon, 06 Oct 97 13:36:18 EDT Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (NJE origin JLISTS@WVNVM) by WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with BSMTP id 8160; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:36:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: Text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:36:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Lozier" To: "sal" , , , Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and han Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 81 In a nutshell, I like sal's suggestion to add a zero to the gross income allowed to small organic farmers. Cutting through the verbiage, is this something people could agree to? In-Reply-To: Message of 10/05/97 at 07:03:46 from sals@rain.org >The USDA/NOP cost may hurt the small organic farmer and handlers and they >should rethink the $5000 and raise add a 0 to the end . They should say >$50000 in farm sells to be fair to the small farmer and handlers To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 15:21:20 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA04749; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA26179; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id OAA25276 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id OAA25003 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dancer.1stnet.com (root@mail1.1stnet.com [206.104.32.40]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id OAA20207 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:34:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bruce (ppp13.1stnet.com [206.104.46.13]) by dancer.1stnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15521; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:34:19 -0500 Message-ID: <34392C71.109C@1stnet.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 13:22:41 -0500 From: "Susan K. Snow" Reply-To: sksnow@1stnet.com Organization: Pollution Solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Lozier CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and han References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 82 As a consumer, I agree. At least adding a zero to the gross income allowed to small organic farmers would get them out of the poverty index. I do hope that poor, small organic farmers do not use composted sewage sludge to rejuvenate their soil, even if 'professional' composters give it away --'cheap.' Susan Snow ------------------------------------------------------------------------ John Lozier wrote: > > In a nutshell, I like sal's suggestion to add a zero to the gross income > allowed to small organic farmers. Cutting through the verbiage, is this > something people could agree to? > In-Reply-To: Message of 10/05/97 at 07:03:46 from sals@rain.org > > >The USDA/NOP cost may hurt the small organic farmer and handlers and they > >should rethink the $5000 and raise add a 0 to the end . They should say > >$50000 in farm sells to be fair to the small farmer and handlers > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 15:28:24 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA04981; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:28:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA28345; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id PAA04141 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id PAA04111 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id PAA22314 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12081; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:04:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:04:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" X-Sender: san@cliff To: sanet-mg cc: Sustainable Agriculture Network Subject: More Majordomo Information Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 83 Sanet: A couple of clarifications about sanet's move from almanac to majordomo: 1) You don't need to do anything if you want to keep receiving sanet-mg messages as you always have. 2) You can only post a message to sanet-mg IF YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED. 3) IF you want the digest of sanet, you will need to unsubscribe from the regular sanet, and subscribe to the digest. The digest collects ALL messages in a 24-hour period and sends them ALL in one message. The one message has a list of all the subject lines, followed by all of the messages -- again, all in that one (VERY LONG) message. You would receive only one e-mail from sanet each day. Here's what the beginning of a digest looks like: ___________________________________________________________________________ sanet-mg-digest Monday, October 6 1997 Volume 01 : Number 006 In this issue: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Volunteers Re: comments on UDSA/NOP N.E. Regional CSA Conference organic labelling Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers LIVING SNOW FENCE SYMPOSIUM September-October 1997 CSAS Newsletter ________________________________________________________________________ Then, each of the 9 messages in the Oct. 6 digest would follow. Please contact me directly if you have questions. Andy Clark, Ph.D. SAN Coordinator c/o AFSIC, Room 304 National Agricultural Library 10301 Baltimore Ave. Beltsville, MD 20705-2351 PH: 301-504-6425 FAX: 301-504-6409 san@nal.usda.gov http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/san/ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 17:32:52 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA01674; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA01579; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id PAA07410 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id PAA07387 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id PAA22601 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s16.term1.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.146]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA08784; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971006121340.007a73d0@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 12:13:40 -0700 To: Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov In-Reply-To: <971006122111_337898216@emout05.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 84 .> > . This is the small farms listserver does that mean that it is for folks > that sell under $5000. What is a small farm? is $5000 and under > considered a small farm. I don't think so. What is the average per annual > sells of farms in the US so I can get an idea of what is small. >> > > >EAK: 15 years ago it was concluded that in California that a small farm was >one that grossed less then $250,000 annually. I have a few questions. Who >is your organic certifier? What makes you think that organic farmers are >"poor farmers"? I have 7800 certified and registered organic farmers on the >Organic Farmers Marketing Association's database, have met personally >hundreds if not thousands of them and do not know a one who is really "poor" . So you think that gives you the right to take our hard earned money because you don't know any poor farmers ?Maybe that is you problem you don't know any poor growers. That is how me and Eric meet I went to see if my wallet was in my back pocket and we shook hands. (joke) hello Eric ! now you know a poor farmer so get your hand out of my pocket. . I was going to join and really wanted to join the Organic Farmers Marketing Association but I could not afford and never had an extra $25 dollars. If California concluded that a small farm was one that grossed less than $250,000 annually why is the small farm exemption only $5000. . If all the farmers you know are rich and you don't know any poor ones raise the small farmers exemption to $250,000 annually sells or at least $50,000 just for the poor farmers you don't seem to know are even out there so we can still farm organic. What is the harm if in all your years you have never meet a poor organic grower. Easy just raise the small farm exemption. That way if there are some poor farmers that grow and sell organic they can still grow organic with out the burden of paying out money they may not have. Lets be reasonable we don't want to make a act that will hurt people that are not doing anything wrong. . To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 6 20:06:49 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA04374; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA01020; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id TAA02073 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id TAA02030 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from calshp.cals.wisc.edu (calshp.cals.wisc.edu [144.92.132.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id TAA01696 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 19:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ae.aae.wisc.edu by calshp.cals.wisc.edu with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/16.2) id AA203321383; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:43:04 -0500 Received: from AE/SpoolDir by ae.aae.wisc.edu (Mercury 1.21); 6 Oct 97 18:44:18 CST Received: from SpoolDir by AE (Mercury 1.30); 6 Oct 97 18:43:22 CST From: "Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS, UW-Madison" To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:43:19 -0500 Subject: URLs/Kondratieff and other cycles X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-Id: Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 85 Howdy, all-- Because I was standing in the Pacific Ocean on Friday afternoon, I did not post URLs Of The Week. Last week I was interested in Kondratieff and other cycles, based on a conversation with a Wisconsin small grain farmer. I have a question, then some links. Is there anybody on SANET who has this as an interest, and sees particular applications of long wave cycles to sustainable ag? I used to be an avid reader of /Barron's/ (and still read the /Left Business Observer/), so I have a (very rudimentary) sense of this stuff in the realms of economics...but what about agriculture? What about sustag in particular? Does global climate change fit here? Any observations, focusing, or musings would be welcome. Some URLs, for those of you who are interested.... Foundation for the Study of Cycles links to other sites http://www.pond.com/~cycles/links.htm This link of theirs: http://www.pond.com/~cycles/research.htm includes Herschel's early 19th century observations on the fluctuating prices of wheat...i.e., correlating solar energy and wheat production. Caroline or William...it doesn't say. Somebody at the U. of CT put this list of links up: http://gopher.uconn.edu/~jpa94001/harmony.html One of them is a "planetary cycles and soybean prices" list which I haven't been able to get to work. I don't know who the hell Ray Tomes is--he seems a lot like my ex-father-in-law, a very bright man with wide ranging interests in the sciences whose ideas I often found defied categorization but challenged and stretched my thinking--but here's his Web site on Cycles in the Universe: http://kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/index.htm Here's the Mt. Wilson Observatory HK project Sunspot Site: http://www.mtwilson.edu/Science/HK_Project/Maunder/index.html This was an intriguing and...strange...search. It turned up everything from the Federal Reserve Bank of NY on economic cycles in lending to stuff on "fractals and crop circles," as excogitated by a man who signs himself the Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding. Who as you know, died in a Madison lake. Otis, that is. Ruminating, as is appropriate in America's Dairyland, I wish you peace michele <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Michele Gale-Sinex, communications manager Center for Integrated Ag Systems UW-Madison College of Ag and Life Sciences Voice: (608) 262-8018 FAX: (608) 265-3020 http://www.wisc.edu/cias/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you knew what life was worth, you would look for yours on earth. --Bob Marley To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 7 02:07:50 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA13254; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA16887; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id BAA25417 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:42:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id BAA25413 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enaila.nidlink.com (root@enaila.nidlink.com [205.219.220.23]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id BAA07772 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hillnet1.nidlink.com (pm5-15.nidlink.com [206.96.73.22]) by enaila.nidlink.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA27426; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971007023531.00721f80@mail.nidlink.com> X-Sender: benbrook@mail.nidlink.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:35:31 -0400 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: Charles Benbrook Subject: A Few Thoughts Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 86 Deb Paulson asked that I again address some of the organic certification issues that have been discussed so much of late. Sal has raised many important and pressing issues, with passion. But his style of communication, his anger, and tendency to go on and on is starting to both turn people off and obscure the real issues and need for thoughtful, organized action. I also implore everyone on this list, indeed all lists, to remember the power of kindness and a little civility and humility. I wish Sal would drop the sarcasm and constant accusations about peoples' and organizations' motives. Calling USDA staff and other people involved in organic certification "pencil pushers" at best does not help and at worst is demeaning and sends a terrible signal to consumers. Plus, it will not help resolve the underlying and very real problems Sal has raised. Venting his spleen may make Sal feel better, but it does not a movement make. If Sal (and other farmers) were to divert his (their) time to making the case for change and coalition building, who would tend his (their) farm(s)? Organic farmers are not well represented in the current mix of players on these issues. The organic trade is more directly controlled by the businesses processing and selling organic produce. Some sustainable agriculture, consumer, farm worker and environmental organizations will be addressing some/all of the points Sal raises in their official comments to the USDA NOP regulations, which have been in "soon to be published" mode for the last six months (or two years, depending on how you count). But the trade will have a different set of concerns, and will have much at stake in moving the regs closer to thier positions. It remains unclear whether the organic farmer will receive a fair share of the benefits/burdens when all is said and done. How can Sal and other concerned and knowledgeful farmers help? By educating the variety of trade, consumer, environmental and other organizations that will be doing comments on the proposed organic program regulations. Sal has put some key issues on the table that WILL be addressed in the regs at length -- fee structures, the size of farms exempt from sales, how the exemption should be applied, need to avoid duplicative paperwork and overlapping certification, fair treatment of organic farms sprayed as part of APHIS region-wide programs (like med-fly control), role of genetic engineering in organic farming. In response to Deb's questions, both private NGO-like organizations and state governments run certification programs. The programs compete for business through price, quality, and links to the marketplace. Some certifiers are known and trusted in Europe, others in Asia, and some specialize in parts of the food system (processing, for example). Competion in the world of certifiers has been a generally good thing, except for a few that have so diluted the integrity of the process that they now threaten to drag down the whole industry. The USDA is not going to get into the certification business directly; what they will do is accredit existing and future certification programs as "up to standards". What does that mean? It is sort of like what educational boards, or hospital accrediation does for an academic institution, or a hospital. These accrediting bodies review competence, procedures, the record, and phyical assets to determine whether they can deliver an acceptable product or service, as advertised. At a minimum, USDA accreditation will catch, and deal with those certifiers not competing on a level laying field, i.e. by offering certification services for half the cost, and better yet, with NO PAPERWORK. Send us the money and we'll send you our seal. This is not the kind of certification Sal wants to see. At the risk of greatly simplifying a complex process, and leaving some things out since I am a bit rusty on this front, I will summarize what it means when an organic certifier is accredited by USDA, or IFOAM (the international organic federation), or anyone else. It means that the certifier has clear and meaningful organic production standards that are minimally in compliance with some established standards, and some existing allowed/prohibited inputs list; that the certifier calls for and receives a credible organic farm plan; that the certifier hires or has on staff competent inspectors who file reports that contain information needed to reach judgements that a given grower is in compliance with required standards; that "chain of custody" can be documented as food is harvested from x field and is sold through the system; and that the decision to certify a given grower is based on a factual record that supports the judgement the grower is in compliance, and that the decision was reached by a body qualified to make such judgement and free of conflicts of interest. Once the USDA regulations are in place, the Department will start accrediting certifiers, as the law requires. This need not add a new tax on organic farmers. Since the regulations are not out, I do not know how the costs of accreditation will be set or paid. I do not know how certifiers will pass on the costs to their growers. But I suspect the cost of gaining USDA accreditation will be modest relative to a certifiers operating budget, and that it will translate into just a few cents per acre extra certified. If Sal is paying $10.00 per acre for certification now, he might pay $10.08 for USDA-accredited certification. Will the benefits of having USDA accredited certification be worth 8 more cents to Sal? My personal guess is that, despite some ongoing controversies and inefficiency, it will be supported by and worth it to scrupulous organic producers and the better certifiers. It may well be opposed by those just seeking the cheapest way into the organic market and who view the certification process has little more than a paperwork hassle to work around. The basic purpose of certification is to gain and keep consumer confidence in organic food, whether grown on a large or small farm. If the consumer is turned off to organics by bad press over fraudulent organic practices, or shoddy certification, it will not matter if the farms involved were large or small. Run well, as some certfiers are doing today, certification can be a positive process of reflection regarding what a farmer is doing and why their system is working, or sometimes does not work. It can foster valuable information exchange, help define research needs and the limits of new technology and inputs, and it can stimulate collegial review of methods to overcome common problems. Stepping back, there are two major dimensions of this debate. One dimension/question can be stated simply as -- Is certification needed at all? Why should organic farmers go out of their way, and bear the cost, of getting a stamp of approval when they are, as Sal says, the "good guys"? Enough said on this front. Second, if there is going to be certification, how can it be done fairly and efficiently, in ways that build consumer confidence in the industry, and which stand the tests of time? The USDA's entrance as an accrediting body is relevant to this question, but not terribly germane to the first, unless it is answered affirmatively. Certification is a formal way for the consumer and farmer to cut a deal within dynamic and open marketplaces. The consumer agrees to pay a little more, and sometimes go out of their way some, or alter their choices, in return for knowing, or at least believing that what they are buying has been grown and processed in a substantially different and less ecologically damaging way. Certification is a tool organic farmers and the trade have used to build confidence and recognition in the marketplace. It is something the industry has developed itself as a proactive way to accelerate change. Other avenues such as certifiying conventional produce as damaging to the environment and threatening to health, is tied up in committee. It is a HUGE mistake, in my judgement, to load onto the debate over certification all the ills and controversies on the agriculture scene today. Organic certification has almost nothing to do with trends in the size of farms or farm structure. It did not cause them nor will it change them. Nor is it the place to fight over region-wide mandatory spray programs, although there is a need to address consequences for organic farmers unlucky enough to live in a quaranteen area or where all land is sprayed. It is a critical place, though to debate the role of genetic engineering in food production, since people have a right to know and so many want more information on labels about how their food is produced. Those who support organic farming need to keep their eye on the important balls as they work with colleagues, associates and organizations to respond to the USDA proposed rule. I think a broad coalition still might come together, and through speaking with a more or less united voice, could convince USDA to take some of Sal's advise. But there is much work to do to go from here to there. Its time to move ahead for those who want to make a difference. Note New New Address!!: Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice) Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax) 5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail] Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 7 04:41:25 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id EAA15981; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id EAA10159; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id EAA03501 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:12:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id EAA03495 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id EAA10069 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.45]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id DAA17805; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:18:27 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3439FC36.5FDE@acnet.net> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 03:09:10 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Benbrook CC: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: A Few Thoughts References: <2.2.32.19971007023531.00721f80@mail.nidlink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 87 As always, CV. B.'s point is thoughtfully, constructively and patiently presented. But I suggest the underlying issue goes beyond differences in farming methods or healthier vs. less healthier food. It's who will pay the cost of maintaining the biosphere habitable and above all, does the political will exist to take that cost into account and mandate the inclusion of that criteria in the marketplace. It's easier to cut corners because vested interests and lazy perception on the part of both the public at large AND many concerned professionals in the field would rather sell out - or postpone excercising that basic responsibility. Am I referring to an impractical or overly ambitious task? Some will say yes. But then again, maybe complacency and / or inability to get to the crux of the matter are too inbred among those intellectuals best capable of acheiving that goal, and I don't expect much support for this point of view from this forum at this time. D.H. Charles Benbrook wrote: > >the underlying and very real problems Sal has raised. > > Venting his spleen may make Sal feel better, but it does not a > movement make. If Sal (and other farmers) were to divert his (their) time > to making the case for change and coalition building, who would tend his > (their) farm(s)? ... It remains > unclear whether the organic farmer will receive a fair share of the > benefits/burdens when all is said and done. > > How can Sal and other concerned and knowledgeful farmers help? By > educating the variety of trade, consumer, environmental and other > organizations that will be doing comments on the proposed organic program > regulations. Sal has put some key issues on the table that WILL be addressed > in the regs at length -- fee structures, the size of farms exempt from > sales, how the exemption should be applied, need to avoid duplicative > paperwork and overlapping certification, fair treatment of organic farms > sprayed as part of APHIS region-wide programs (like med-fly control), role > of genetic engineering in organic farming. > > In response to Deb's questions, both private NGO-like organizations > and state governments run certification programs. The programs compete for > business through price, quality, and links to the marketplace. ... > > The USDA is not going to get into the certification business > directly; what they will do is accredit existing and future certification > programs as "up to standards". ... At a minimum, USDA > accreditation will catch, and deal with those certifiers not competing on a > level laying field, i.e. by offering certification services for half the > cost, and better yet, with NO PAPERWORK. Send us the money and we'll send > you our seal. This is not the kind of certification Sal wants to see. ... > > Once the USDA regulations are in place, the Department will start > accrediting certifiers, as the law requires. This need not add a new tax on > organic farmers. Since the regulations are not out, I do not know how the > costs of accreditation will be set or paid. I do not know how certifiers > will pass on the costs to their growers. ... > > The basic purpose of certification is to gain and keep consumer > confidence in organic food, whether grown on a large or small farm. ... > > Stepping back, there are two major dimensions of this debate. One > dimension/question can be stated simply as -- Is certification needed at > all? ... Enough said on this front. > > Second, if there is going to be certification, how can it be done > fairly and efficiently, in ways that build consumer confidence in the > industry, and which stand the tests of time? ... > Certification is a formal way for the consumer and farmer to cut a > deal within dynamic and open marketplaces. The consumer agrees to pay a > little more, and sometimes go out of their way some, or alter their choices, > in return for knowing, or at least believing that what they are buying has > been grown and processed in a substantially different and less ecologically > damaging way. ... > > Those who support organic farming need to keep their eye on the > important balls as they work with colleagues, associates and organizations > to respond to the USDA proposed rule. I think a broad coalition still might > come together, and through speaking with a more or less united voice, could > convince USDA to take some of Sal's advise. But there is much work to do to > go from here to there. Its time to move ahead for those who want to make a > difference. > > > > Note New New Address!!: > > Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice) > Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax) > 5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail] > Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net > -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 7 10:34:24 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA22532; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA11051; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA23209 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA23203 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from citrine.cyberstation.net (root@citrine.cyberstation.net [205.167.0.5]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA06324 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [205.167.0.36] (dialup7.cyberstation.net [205.167.0.36]) by citrine.cyberstation.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA10152 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:07:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:13:29 -0500 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Robert Dixon Subject: organic certification Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 88 So many issues to discuss, the cost of certification, is the system too bureaucratic, should farmers have to pay for it all, does certification serve any purpose, what is a small farm and should they be excluded from the need for certification. Sal looks at certification as a useless cost since he gets no benefits from it, he calls it an unfair tax that penalizes him for trying to farm in a way that does not hurt the environment. I see the cost of certification as insurance. It tries to ensure that people do not make false claims, that a system based on trust is safeguarded and that everyone can back up their claims in a way that would stand up in court. I spend a lot of money buying certified organic food and I do not trust claims of natural or made without chemicals or hormone free etc. etc. This is not because farmers are trying to cheat the system but rather after twenty years working in agriculture and five years as an organic inspector, I see that people mean different things when they say certain words. Certification helps clear up what exactly is meant by the word organic. Costs to small farmers are an issue that certifiers and inspectors are sensitive about. Most inspectors work at other jobs and so there is some flexibility when negotiating a price with a particular grower. Perhaps retailers and processors would give up some of their profits or a check off could be set up where a few cents of consumers money could go towards the certification process. Even a tiny fraction of the billions spent by consumers in the USA would help with certification costs. If you exclude organic famers with $50,000. in sales that would take out most organic growers in the USA. According to the 1993 survey of organic producers done by the Organic Farming Research Foundation, the median gross farm income from sales of organic food was between $15, 000 and $30,000. Perhaps things have changed in the last 5 years but most organic farms are small, family run operations that still need off farm income ( does someone have more recent facts? ). Who likes to fill out forms?!!! Sometimes it seems that is all we inspectors do. How many farms do we go to where the forms are done according to the letter of the regulations? Not very many. It takes time to go through them, verify an audit trail etc. etc. Sal may feel this is a waste of time but doing that is part of safeguarding the system. Like insurance you do not think about it untill it is needed. If the paperwork will not stand up in court then what good is it? Each inspection could hurt the integrity of the whole system if not done correctly. It does not matter untill your status is called into question and then the paperwork is the only thing that matters. Certification, like democracry, is a frustrating and time consuming process but it is the best system we have and it will only get better as we work to simplify it. Consumers need to be better educated, paperwork needs to be more focused, records need to be summarized better using computers and we have to get a better handle on things like residue and soil quality tests. The profitable end of the organic industry will be pushing it's agenda so farmers and consumers and certifiers and organic inspectors have to be prepared to do the same. Who can really argue with Sal's points? Certification can seem like so much useless extra cost. Why not reduce the need for annual inspections for growers that are not changing their operations, have been certified for years, have not had any problems and are not in a high risk area eg. surrounded by growers who use lots of chemicals. These people would still need to send in the paperwork and keep all the records but they could go a year without an on farm inspection. That would help reduce costs and still safequard the integrity of the system. This could only apply to growers under $50,000. in gross farm sales. The real missing link in all these discussions is consumers. They are the ones that the certification system is designed to satisfy. They are the ones putting billions of dollars down on the counter for certified organic food and they are the ones whose number is growing the fastest and therefore have the most political power. Better informed consumers means more help in the on going task of creating a certification system that meets growers, certifers and consumers needs. Let us not forget the export market of Europe! Those consumers can be even more particular then we are in North America and that is a huge market that the USA sells into. Sal, with his honesty and passion, has raised the whole discussion of organic certification to another level. The comments have been very interesting but will any real solutions come out of this. How do the views expressed here get translated into action at the right level? I will still buy only certified organic food, ask questions at the supermarket about where my food comes from and each inspection will be done as if the integrity of the whole certification process depended on it. Oh, by the way, the use of sewage sludge is generally prohibited. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 7 12:13:15 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA24665; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA09194; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA04841 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:49:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA04776 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:49:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from comp.uark.edu (root@comp.uark.edu [130.184.252.197]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA11173 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:49:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ncatark.uark.edu (ncatark.uark.edu [130.184.41.248]) by comp.uark.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA08993 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:49:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Unknown ([130.184.41.238]) by ncatark.uark.edu (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id PAA02421 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:50:23 GMT Message-Id: <199710071550.PAA02421@ncatark.uark.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Steve Diver" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:38:33 +0000 Subject: Humic acid preparation Reply-to: steved@ncatark.uark.edu X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 89 Can anybody supply citations to articles or books that discuss preparation of humic acids (for use in a foliar feeding program) from granular, mined humates? Who are some of the researchers or extension people who work with humates and humic acids? Thanks! Steve Diver ATTRA To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 7 12:22:58 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA24842; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA11765; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:18:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA11436 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA11425 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from comp.uark.edu (root@comp.uark.edu [130.184.252.197]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA11464 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ncatark.uark.edu (ncatark.uark.edu [130.184.41.248]) by comp.uark.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA18943 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:58:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Unknown ([130.184.41.238]) by ncatark.uark.edu (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id PAA02478 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:59:06 GMT Message-Id: <199710071559.PAA02478@ncatark.uark.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Steve Diver" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:47:16 +0000 Subject: Mycorrhizae in nursery-greenhouse production Reply-to: steved@ncatark.uark.edu X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 90 Can anybody supply citations to articles or books that discuss the practical use of mycorrhizae in greenhouse and nursery production (both containerized and soil culture)? Who are some of the researchers and extension people who work with mycorrhizae in production horticulture? Thanks! Steve Diver ATTRA -- steved@ncatark.uark.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 7 15:41:23 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA29414; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA15819; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id PAA15385 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:17:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id PAA15336 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from telegraph.uwyo.edu (telegraph.uwyo.edu [129.72.60.11]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id PAA21618 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:17:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by telegraph.uwyo.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52) id <01BCD323.5478CBD0@telegraph.uwyo.edu>; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:17:15 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Deborah D. Paulson" To: "'benbrook@hillnet.com'" Cc: "'sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu'" Subject: comments to benbrook Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:17:12 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 91 Dear Charles, Thank you for your long thoughtful reply. You've cleared up many questions I had. I do think the devil is in the details (as you basically argue). However, how certification and labeling is done and who it is controlled by are very related to the larger issue of the scale of agriculture and the type of food system we move toward. Sal's anger is stimulated by large political forces that seem to consistently make the playing field less even in favor of larger scale corporate agriculture (if this were not true we would not see most people favoring labeling of GE products while the trend is to actually make it illegal to label). Someone resisting the trend toward coporate, large-scale agriculture may be most effective by accepting the reality of the current situation and then making the most strategic moves (which may involve a more proactive, cooperative approach), but to not acknowledge the relationship of certification to the larger issues of the scale and nature of agriculture would seem naive. Hope I did not misunderstand your comment about not loading onto the discussion of certification "all the ills and controversies on the agricultural scene today." I realize I may have read too much into that. Thanks again for your very useful discussion of certification. Deb Paulson To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 7 17:07:24 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA01281; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA14995; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id QAA08671 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id QAA08571 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:47:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id QAA04271 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s16.term1.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.146]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA20914; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971007134732.007ba660@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 13:47:32 -0700 To: Robert Dixon , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: organic certification In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 92 Good! people are starting to talk. The weels are getting greased. The time is getting close. Sal is crud and does not know how to talk to people and sweet talk them . he sees maybe 10 people a year and is a kind of a stay on the farm guy. . He is not a talker but a small grower and probably not one of the best growers but he loves the organic movement . Sal never said certification is useless and has been certified for years . Sal for some reason is feeling really oppressed and depressed and he is just trying to understand why. Sal may not be the only organic grower that feels this way. enough of this starting every sentience with Sal you got me doing it. I was farming organic and my customers said why don't you get certified . I went to my first CCOF meeting and everyone there were farmers like my self. We talk about organic growing and voted on stuff etc. I was inspected. I went through the same as most all organic growers . you know I could not understand why I could not be organic right off but was told it would take a few years even though I was organic now they need time this was called a transition period. Ok ok so I was inspected a few more times . Back then farmers would inspect other farmers and even though others thought they were not for real they were real honest folks. I had gained a lot of respect of these folks and as time passed we got the word that the inspections would be going up . And did they . Later CCOF was doing such a good job caring for us , we were getting some real respect in the market place. Soon CCOF wanted more teeth in their certification and I could never understand why. it seemed to me like every year I would be inspected and every year the inspector would go over my books and it seem to me they were doing a great job. But no they wanted teeth. So they went to the State. Now the state this may sound crude but the state did not love the idea of giving time to a fringe small group like organic growers . They are busy folks. So to me it seemed like CCOF sweeten the pie by saying the organic farmers will pay for all of it. Even now most state folks don't want to bother with organic growers. Now the state to me seem like their only interest they have in organic growers is to catch them at something. So they started sending me all kind of intimidating stuff letting me know they were out to get me and that was all they were conceded with. A lot of my old friends that were in CCOF left and our numbers really droped. The folks that left ,left because they thought that turning organic over to the state was bad for organic growers and that it takes organic growing out of the grass roots movement and something we were proud of to at enforcement bureaucratic paper kingdom. Those good folks that quit CCOF had a hard time because they like me were basing their life and live hood on CCOF certification. They had to find new markets and lucky for them most did it was not easy. I miss them at the meetings and we have now become a docile bunch of sheep waiting to be lead around . I think the only thing we voted on it the local chapter was to raise fees and everyone but me said yes. I loose again. It seem to me a lot of that great sprit was killed off . I know it is hard for you folks to understand but organic growing had a spirt in those days . Those folks still grow organic but they have to live without the certification part. Now that will change and now they can not even use the O word (and they have been organic from the start even before me)unless they pay and bow down. I feel for these good folks and wonder why they would give up so much even the O word. I now am feeling some kind of oppression where I use to feel free. I am certified now and I feel I can pass any old inspection so it is not the rules that make me feel oppressed and it is not even the paper work. hell I have a computer now the money part well money is not my strong suit. I don't have much and every one wants what I have.If you want money I am not you man . I know myself and I know I have done nothing wrong yet I feel every one now instead of being glad that we organic are out to get us. . Something has change and it was not me. I understand that customer would like to know every one is telling the truth and I got certified for them to give them peace of mine. . I have not heard from many farmers yet so I don't know if they feel this oppression that is sweeping over me. I went to a meeting last night and those there felt it too. WE are going to send letters out to all registered organic growers in Ca. and I will have a better idea of how they feel about all this BIG Brother stuff. . I bet there are a few farmers like my self that feel that this is going the wrong way. I don't know if we can ever get back to where I am reviewed by my peers rather than a state or Federal inspector that really does not care about organic only enforcement. Now the last too posts sweeten me I like to here the sweet talk but something is wrong. I am glad to hear folks talking . Don't take offence at any thing I say as I try to work this out in my own head. Now the certifier is not enough and the inspector is not enough and now the state even is not enough. It will take the Federal government to see that I am organic along with all these other folks. And I pay them all. Also as you all have notice I am not a very diplomatic person and I feel that I may tick off any one of the folks who now have so much power over me.and they just may kill me off or stop my certification and put me out in the cold because of the way I talk. I am outspoken and do feel the USDA is doing wrong with this DNA changing of life forms but now I better shut up and I feel the state is way too oppressive on organic growers to say the least but if I say something they will pounce on me. Not only have they taken away my words but they have shut me up.. And now both these groups have my life in their hands. . I can not afford to go to court . Does this mean I will soon have to go to court to prove I am organic. When will it ever stop. I think the teeth that the certifier wanted are biting the wrong folks. Sure a big farmer does not mind . they have a lawyer looking out for their rights but I can not even afford to get my teeth fixed. I feel that the people at the top that are growing all these teeth should think about the grower that these teeth are set up to bit. To me telling all these government agencies that the farmer will pay for all this it may be ok if there were no poor small farmers but I think we got offered up as part of the sacerfice. Soon there may not be any small organic growers . It is too bad because it was a way the little guy could earn a living working the ground in an organic way. Oh well the big fish eat little fish and that is life. Now you have to be so poor that you only make $5000 in sells and maybe then they may throw you a bone. Rock soup and that little bone does not taste half bad. I am thankful for what I have. I still feel that I should not have to pay 1 cent extra to grow and sell organic. I paid the state and I paid the certifier and the inspector but feel I am getting the short end of the deal . To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 08:34:18 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA23469; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA28749; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id IAA17730 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id IAA17643 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from main.nrg.com.au (root@main.nrg.com.au [203.16.176.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id IAA00336 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:09:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fresherb.nrg.com.au (nrgline15.nrg.com.au [203.16.176.215]) by main.nrg.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA07983 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:12:00 +1000 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971008120853.006a3430@MAIN.NRG.COM.AU> X-Sender: fresherb@MAIN.NRG.COM.AU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 22:08:53 +1000 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: David Hine Subject: certification Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 93 Hi all There is a feeling of injustice amongst some of the posts on this issue. Sal has been prominent in criticizing the impact on small growers - in this case organic growers. Organic growers are not alone in being asked to provide evidence/meet standards on their food production methods and facilities. We are not small by the standards discussed( but with 3 ha of culinary herbs we're not very big either by market garden standards) nor are we organic. But we re being asked to provide evidence of our methods and to meet a standard known here in Australia as SQF 2000, derived from ISO 9000 series. The request is coming from the supermarkets, yes but it is coming more fundamentally from the community. Now some on SANET may feel it entirely just that conventional farmers should send documentation with a consignment of food about the methods and substances used in its growing. Consider though that the same question could be ( and may already be asked) of organic producers who sell to large retailers. The SQF 2000 process is also very concerned about bacterial contamination. It is clear that our packing shed will need to meet the standards of any food handling or preparation establishment - like a restaurant. It isn't going to be easy at all. Our greatest concern is e. coli contamination. The rainwater we use to mist the bunches in the coldroom could be contaminated by bird droppings. Our irrigation water comes from a dam which collects runoff from pasture on which cattle graze and may well be contaminated. The solution is not obvious. The costs of upgrading seem large, and those of maintaining the records/accreditation unending. There is no immediate prospect of recovering the extra expense either. These concerns are not ones which organic growers can excuse themselves from in the long term. Several people have pointed out that using the term organic on produce implies a guarantee which needs, for the consumers sake, to be clear and reliable. It is the same for conventional growers when they deal in the central market. And it is entirely understandable. The impact of this is however to polarize production even more between larger growers servicing anonymous urban markets, and very small growers who service people they meet face to face and with whom they discuss the food quality issue. The oppportunity to grow from small to large is becoming more difficult. Even staying the same middle size is getting harder. David David Hine Sustainable Farm Design Works Atkins Rd, Cawongla via Kyogle, NSW, Australia 2474 ph/fax: 61 2 6633 7162. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 09:02:00 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA23868; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:01:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA05023; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id IAA06667 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:38:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id IAA06650 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:37:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id IAA01513 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA09321; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:37:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:37:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Andy Clark X-Sender: aclark@cliff To: sanet-mg cc: Adela Backiel , infopcsd@aol.com Subject: PCSD - President's Council on Sustainable Development Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 94 Please refer to contact information at the end of this message. Andy ______________________________________________________________ Date: 10/06/1997 09:53 am (Monday) Subject: Please help the PCSD plan for a National Sustainable Development Summit Please distribute; apologies for cross-postings. President's Council on Sustainable Development A N N O U N C E S A NATIONAL SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT What could it do for you? What can you do for it? Please send your ideas. The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) has begun a planning process for a National Summit on Sustainable Development scheduled to take place in early 1999. The purpose of the summit is to catalyze a national movement toward sustainable development and to use the event as an opportunity to better articulate the concepts and opportunities of sustainable development to the American public. The summit will bring together representatives from government, business, community, and non-profit organizations to exchange information and learn from each other; and showcase ideas, technologies, and practices that reflect an integrated approach toward Americans' economic, environmental, and social equity goals. We want to celebrate successes, transfer lessons learned, and galvanize further action to implement sustainable development throughout the nation. Proposals have been made to hold accompanying regional and local events as well. In an effort to make the planning process as participatory as possible, the PCSD is seeking your ideas and comments. Please send your responses to the following questions by, Monday, November 24, 1997: What outcomes would you want from a Sustainable Development Summit? What could a national Sustainable Development Summit do for you, your organization, or your business? What components would you like to see as part of the Summit? Do you think that local and/or regional events before, during, or after the national summit as well as satellite downlinks would be a good idea? Other ideas? Both anonymous and signed comments are welcome. To receive regular updates on the conference planning, please include your full name, title, affiliation, address, telephone, fax, and email information. Thank you. Please send written comments by Monday, November 24, 1997 via email (preferably), fax, or mail to: Conference Coordinator President's Council on Sustainable Development 730 Jackson Place, NW Washington, DC 20503 email , fax: 202 408 6839 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 11:38:53 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA27843; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:38:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA25411; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA09834 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA09772 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA08956 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s24.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.184]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA19402; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971008081716.007b8b70@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 08:17:16 -0700 To: David Hine , sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: certification In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971008120853.006a3430@MAIN.NRG.COM.AU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 95 These are only my thoughts yet I can not help but feel there are other small growers that feel the same way. Yes David I understand but you see organic farmers already have to fill out the spray forms and do what any other farmer has to do also we already have to follow food production methods and facilities . This is going to be a extra tax because of the chemicals we are not using. NOT USING This is an extra tax on only organic farmers over and above what farmers have to do. If an organic farmer uses a pesticide even if it is organic we still have to do the paper work. We are not asking to be treated better that any other farmers it is just we don't want to be treated worse. We have to do what regular farmers do plus a tax and paper work for what we don't use. Can you see the chemical farmers being tax for what they don't use? No way why because they are will repesented. You know when a big farmer changes to organic they only want to know what can I substitute for this and what can I use instead of this poison . for the big boys it is easy because the big chemicals companies help them with all the paper work and most are under contract to do the work for them. but when a small farmer wants to grow organic he alone has to eat all the extra paper work and pay all the extra cost and when they take one look at all the bullshit they will have to do and all the extra expense they will have to pay for not using poisons the small farmer will run. Organic food is about 1% of the game. Do you really think the USDA is going to put their arm around the organic farmer and help them along. (JOKE) They are in bed with the big farming business and chemical companys. Do you think the ag. guys want to stop checking Menthol bromide spraying to go check some organic farmer that is not using anything harmful . I think even those that wanted teeth will be greatly disappointed when the USDA comes out with their idea of what organic is . The USDA is pushing DNA changing of life forms as the new fronteer. They are taking over our certifiers and the certifiers will become domicile sheep being lead around by government enforcement on a path they do not want to follow . They are putting stuff in this bill that will hurt the small farmer and burden him . Any one that thinks $5000 anual sells is giving considered concern to the small farmer is heartless and this is absurd and if put in the act it will take a act of congress to change it. this is no game it WILL be a very real hardship on the small farmer that the USDA says they are trying to protect. It is easy for the big boys (Dole.hines ,gurber) to be organic and grab market share and soon there will be no small organic farmers and that is to bad . It would have be a nice niche where small growers could stay on the small farms. but big fish will eat little fish and life go on. At 10:08 PM 10/8/97 +1000, David Hine wrote: >Hi all >There is a feeling of injustice amongst some of the posts on this issue. Sal >has been prominent in criticizing the impact on small growers - in this >case organic growers. >Organic growers are not alone in being asked to provide evidence/meet >standards on their food production methods and facilities. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 12:00:46 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA28315; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:00:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA02074; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:55:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA22285 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA22279 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:39:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x10.boston.juno.com (x10.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.25]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA09956 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:39:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from dan.worley@juno.com) by x10.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id L}S18482; Wed, 08 Oct 1997 11:36:20 EDT To: C.Czarkowski@ens.gu.edu.au, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:33:11 AST Subject: Re: (Fwd) juno.com Message-ID: <19971008.113805.3871.3.DAN.WORLEY@juno.com> References: <199710070455.OAA17470@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,8-9,11-12,27-32 From: dan.worley@juno.com (Daniel D. Worley) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 96 Chris, I forwarded your letter to the powers that be at JUNO.COM and I wrote a note myself requesting that they take action. With well over a million clients, I doubt they will do much though. Controlling SPAM is not an easy task. Blocking sites that flagrantly engage in SPAM may be one way to fight it. But the SPAMMERS will only find a new site within a few days. And in the meantime, legitimate mail is also blocked, as was the case with my letter and as you pointed out, with a number of others. Maybe if all the other members of Sanet who use JUNO send in complaints it will do some good. Who knows? The position I take on all of this is I send a note to the group in the hopes that all subscribers will see it. But if two or three miss it because their mail box is already full (a common rejection note I get) or their ISP is blocking mail from my ISP, then that is just too bad. I would think that anyone who is a subscriber to this list and has a portion of the posts to the list blocked by his/her ISP as is the case here, that they would complain to the system administrator and demand that the block be removed. I have done just that in the past when the site administrator at another site where I routinely get mail blocked JUNO in the past because JUNO mail was being bounced by THEIR server. The problem was traced to the other server and JUNO was found to be blameless in that case. I this case, I am not sure how this problem should, or can be dealt with. But putting a complete block on a site because a few users of that site send out SPAM is NOT the way I would recommend doing it. That is the old "Punish the innocent" policy. --Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico-- DAN.WORLEY@JUNO.COM or dan_worley@compuserve.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 12:38:13 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA00333; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA14135; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id MAA12331 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id MAA12190 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:11:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout39.mail.aol.com (emout39.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.73]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id MAA11483 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:11:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout39.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA21932; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:10:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971008115434_845787164@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 97 Hello Sal, Everyone starts farming with little or nothing, except for those who inherit land, equipment, money, etc. In no way is organic farming going to even out the material differences generated by cunning, previous generations, hard work or greed. And in a real sense, the greater inheritance that anyone can pass on to our children is the ability to think, set ones direction for the future and be innovative. Life is really what we each make of it. Like it or not, how our life is in the USA, in the latter part of the twentieth century is the individuals choice, each farmer or person's choice. If a farmer does not make over $5000 gross a year, it is their choice and they are entitled to do so. If the gross income is less than $5000 annually, under OFPA, they still have to conform to the standards, etc, but do not have to be certified. If you have a gross over $5000 per year and want to use the label "organic", my suggestion is join the group and pay $250-$275 for organic certification. If a potential organic farmer is serious about commercial organic farming for a livelihood, you will be amply repaid for your certification expenses. A potential organic farmer will gain more knowledge on the practices and systems of organic farming by understanding the National Standards. A potential organic farmer knows that their market has a degree of protection from farmers and handlers selling organic who have not met the recognized and agreed upon standards of organic farming and handling. Consumers recognize the certified organic farmer as meeting their expectations and being willing to meet the National Organic Standards. Again Sal, I would like to indicate my appreciation for your viewpoints and right to express them. Perhaps, the opportunity I have always seen in my life is to define a problem and work with others to seek a solution that benefits the consensus. Condemning the US government, the California State government or the certifiers without a factual basis is to me an error in tactics. I am in agreement that passage of OFPA was a preemptive move by some organizations and members of the organic community without offering consultation with organic farmers. Organic farmers made the best of it, by rewriting the original legislation (recognizing the consumers need for a clear, consistent and uniform national definition) and came up with a very clear and effective piece of national legislation, OFPA. We have taken 6 years to get Proposed Rules out, which has allowed the organic handling business, organic consumer base and organic farming to mature. The practices and sophistication of organic farmers and the organic market place between six years ago and now is immense. Issuing of the Proposed Rule in a real sense is right on time. We are now communicating by email, which likewise with the internet, six years ago virtually did not exist. The impact is gigantic, of highest priority democratically empowering large segments of the US population to participate in a Final Organic Rule. I think your strategic defense of small and I would include moderate size farms is excellent, but again tactically structured incorrectly. Anyone intending to organic farm at the $5000 or even $25,000 level needs to look at the realistic cost. With few exceptions cost of production including shipment to the market is at least two thirds to three quarters of the gross (which does include in the analysis a nominal pay scale to all production workers including the owner(s)) which means very little net income to a farm family in these gross income categories--$1,250 and $6,250 net incomes annually at 75% cost of production respectively. The annual net income for a defined "small farm" in California (gross $250,000 being the maximum) yields a net income of $62,500. A goodly and reasonable net income even for California although we all know their are many uncontrollable variables. To me all these calculations are theory, that only come into viable economic reality with efficient biological, labor, mechanical and marketing management and skills. In fact, the Organic Foods Production Act, if implemented as it is written, is the only breath of fresh air for small to moderate size farms in years. I think all of our efforts should be to implement with the least cost and paperwork consistent with a quality National Program possible. Rather then me complain about the inadequacy of governments, certifiers or the Organic Program, my work is to make it work for certified organic farmers handling operations and consumers. Best Regards, Eric In a message dated 97-10-05 07:14:43 EDT, sals@rain.org writes: << Subj: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Date: 97-10-05 07:14:43 EDT From: sals@rain.org (sal) To: Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu CC: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov It has been said of me that I sound angry.I am and in this time in history when the family farm is disappearing in record numbers.the UDSA/NOP is being cruel and heartless saying that a small farm is $5000 or less and anything over $5000 should be taxed. In this day of farm aid, in this day while we are trying to get to help to small family farmers and save the small farm the last thing they need is a tax if they chose to farm organic. This just showed me that the USDA/NOP is a heartless bunch of people that only want to tax the poor in order to support their own exsistance. The average size of farms in Virginia increased from 181.97 acres in 1982 to 196.51 acres in 1992, an increase of nearly 8 percent. At the same time, the number of farms decreased by 18.6 percent from 51,859 to 42,222. The amount of land in farms fell by 12 percent from more than 9.4 million acres in 1982 to just under 8.3 million acres a decade later. So farm size is increasing while the big fish eat the little fish. It looks to me like a small farm would fall at about 50 acres or less. There is a direct link between small farmers and the promotion of sustainable agriculture efforts. In order to encourage this link, we should not tax the small organic farmer. this taken from the North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center on loss of small farms http://www2.ncredc.org/ncredc/papers/smfarmses.html A loss of 13,544 farms (18.6% of the 72,792 present in 1982 A loss of 2,049 minority farms (38.3% of the 5,352 present in 1982) A loss of 6,627 small farms (22.1% of the 29,968 farms of less than 50 acres present in 1982)1 Here it is again 50 or less acres is considered a small farm. I think anything under 50 acres should qualify for the small farmers exemption http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/OrganicCrop/4farmer.htm I do not know where the USDA/NOP came up with the $5000 number but I can not get by the very first line in the NOP. it states that those selling only $5000 will be qualify for the small farmers exemption. This number is way to small and the NOP will be a burden on the small farmer that we so much want to save. This oppression on the poor would make a wise man mad. The introduction of new crops, animal enterprises, and new methods of structuring agricultural production make the effective delivery of agriculture technological, financial management, and marketing services to diverse clientele more important than in the past. Organic farming give the small farmer hope and we should help them not tax them. All the people that are trying to save the small farmer should take note of what these people are doing by taxing the small farmer. Most people with small farms have to work off farm just to keep it together and the NOP wants to take money out of their mouths. there is something wrong when those who are trying to straighten out agriculture are being taxed and burdened with inspections and paperwork while those who continue to pollute and deplete are subsidized and allowed to continue, Go ! Farm Aid save the small farmer from loosing their farm Booo! NOP just another tax on the poor. >> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 13:29:15 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA01252; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA00893; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id NAA19019 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id NAA18984 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.missouri.edu (mail.missouri.edu [128.206.2.169]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id NAA13928 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:10:32 -0400 (EDT) From: kellyd@ext.missouri.edu Received: from ext.missouri.edu (ext.missouri.edu [128.206.212.42]) by mail.missouri.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA170218; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:09:55 -0500 Received: from ccMail by ext.missouri.edu (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) id AA876337534; Wed, 08 Oct 97 12:05:15 cdt Date: Wed, 08 Oct 97 12:05:15 cdt Message-Id: <9709088763.AA876337534@ext.missouri.edu> To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Cc: rwack-sa@worldnet.att.net Subject: organic investing Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 98 I have had someone who is interested in knowing who to contact about learning more about investing in the organic stock market. At this time, he is investing in several different ventures and has been in contact with his stock broker in NY who doesn't seem to know where to turn. Any suggestions or contacts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Debi Kelly, Project Manager Missouri Alternatives Center 628 Clark Hall Columbia, MO 65211 573-882-1905 kellyd@ext.missouri.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 16:35:14 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA12498; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:35:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA28194; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:30:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id QAA07531 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id QAA07502 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (peggy931@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu [129.101.192.43]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id QAA22197 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (peggy931@localhost) by raven.csrv.uidaho.edu with SMTP (8.7.6/8.7.1) id NAA13875 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:09:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.csrv.uidaho.edu: peggy931 owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:09:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Peggy Adams X-Sender: peggy931@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Economics of Community Gardens Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 99 I am doing a literature search for studies which may have been done which show the economic contribution to the local economy of farmer's markets and/or community gardens. Are any of you aware of such research? Thank you Peggy Adams peggy931@uidaho.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 18:01:34 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA16303; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA27374; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA02870 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA02862 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:37:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wigate.nic.wisc.edu (wigate.nic.wisc.edu [128.104.30.18]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id RAA25180 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:37:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ae.aae.wisc.edu by wigate.nic.wisc.edu; Wed, 08 Oct 97 16:37 CST Received: from AE/SpoolDir by ae.aae.wisc.edu (Mercury 1.21); 8 Oct 97 16:37:59 CST Received: from SpoolDir by AE (Mercury 1.30); 8 Oct 97 16:37:56 CST Message-Id: <85BC814CF@ae.aae.wisc.edu> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:37:51 -0500 From: "Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS, UW-Madison" Subject: Urban agriculture URLs To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu CC: cdcramer@clarityconnect.com X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 100 Howdy all-- This week's URLs brought to you courtesy of Yom Kippur, which will take up our usual Friday URL cyberhunting and linksgathering time. Here's a kick-pants set of links to urban ag sites, courtesy of Canada's office of urban agriculture. http://www.cityfarmer.org/urbagnotes1.html#notes The Webmeisters write: "Urban Agriculture Notes is written for those who want to start up their own "Office of Urban Agriculture", for those who have already done so, and for gardeners who are curious about what we refer to as political horticulture. So sit up, bear with us as we add to this site week by week and listen to the birds singing in our garden." I liked this sub-link with pointer, "Community gardens": http://www.cityfarmer.org/communitygarden7.html#community Gosh it sure is some collection and bit of work.... Somebody in Canada has been very busy with this site. Apologies to those of you who already have seen it! To the rest of you, hope you enjoy. pax michele <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Michele Gale-Sinex, communications manager Center for Integrated Ag Systems UW-Madison College of Ag and Life Sciences Voice: (608) 262-8018 FAX: (608) 265-3020 http://www.wisc.edu/cias/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you knew what life was worth, you would look for yours on earth. --Bob Marley To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 18:03:24 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA16320; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:03:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA27954; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:58:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA05776 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:41:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA05681 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mhub2.tc.umn.edu (0@mhub2.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.52]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id RAA25344 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gold.tc.umn.edu by mhub2.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 8 Oct 97 16:41:24 -0500 Received: from pub-25-c-227.dialup.umn.edu by gold.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 8 Oct 97 16:41:20 -0500 From: "Brian DeVore, LSP" Reply-To: "Brian DeVore, LSP" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: FREEDOM TO FARM GUIDE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: POPmail 2.3b4 Message-Id: <343bfe0469e8004@mhub2.tc.umn.edu> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 97 16:41:25 -0500 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 101 PRESS RELEASE: 10/8/97 Contact: Brad DeVries (202) 547-5754 Brian DeVore (612) 653-0618 NEW 'FREEDOM TO FARM' OPTIONS GUIDE NOW AVAILABLE "Making the Most of Freedom to Farm: Innovative uses of Planting Flexibility and Conservation Programs" is now available from the Land Stewardship Project (LSP). This 40-page guide reviews profitable, environmentally beneficial farming practices that are easier for farmers to adopt under new national farm legislation. In 1996, Congress eliminated most of the planting rules that required farmers to plant certain crops in order to qualify for federal support payments. At the same time, the law, which its creators dubbed "Freedom to Farm," does away with federal protections against wide swings in market prices. "Making the Most of Freedom to Farm" offers farmers an overview of innovative practices that were difficult to adopt under the old system of commodity payments -- beneficial crop rotations, integrated crop/livestock operations, conservation tillage, and other approaches -- and points toward recent sources of more in-depth information. The guide includes chapters on "Managing for Total Farm Results," "Making Sense of Federal Programs," "Rotations and Cover Crops for Cost Control," "New Livestock Ideas," and "Tillage Tactics." Each chapter includes real-life examples of farms and farmers who are already having success with these techniques and concludes with an extensive list of contact information, print sources and internet resources. "Farmers have a great opportunity right now to look for an advantage, for the sort of integrated approaches that will make their farms proftable for the long haul. We can't make it just by copying what the big guys are doing on a smaller scale," said Dave Serfling, a Preston, Minn., farmer who produces hay, corn, hogs, beef and sheep on a highly diverse operation. "As prices for the major commodities shake out a bit, I think more farmers will start to realize the solid, long term business advantages of diverse and more complex rotations." Free copes of "Making the Most of Freedom to Farm" are available from Land Stewardship Project offices in the Minnesota communities of Lewiston, Montevideo and White Bear Lake. If you'd like to oder a copy through the mail, send $4 for postage and handling (Minnesota residents add 6.5% sales tax; LSP members receive a 10% discount) to: LSP, 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110. Call (612) 653-0618 for information on bulk orders. A web version of the chapter, "Making Sense of Federal Programs," complete table of contents and news release about "Making the Most of Freedom to Farm is available online at: http://sunsite.unc.edu/farming-connection/farmpoli/features/makesens/home.htm To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 18:11:47 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA16460; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:11:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA01091; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA13097 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA13048 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA25743 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s15.term1.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.145]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA03506 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971008145244.007b1e50@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 14:52:44 -0700 To: sanet-mg From: sal Subject: Message not deliverable Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 102 >These are only my thoughts yet I can not help but feel there are other >small growers that feel the same way. Yes David I understand but you see >organic farmers already have to fill out the spray forms and do what any >other farmer has to do also we already have to follow food production >methods and facilities . This is going to be a extra tax because of the >chemicals we are not using. NOT USING This is an extra tax on only >organic farmers over and above what farmers have to do. If an organic >farmer uses a pesticide even if it is organic we still have to do the paper >work. We are not asking to be treated better that any other farmers it is >just we don't want to be treated worse. We have to do what regular farmers >do plus a tax and paper work for what we don't use. Can you see the >chemical farmers being tax for what they don't use? No way why because >they are will repesented. You know when a big farmer changes to organic >they only want to know what can I substitute for this and what can I use >instead of this poison . for the big boys it is easy because the big >chemicals companies help them with all the paper work and most are under >contract to do the work for them. but when a small farmer wants to grow >organic he alone has to eat all the extra paper work and pay all the extra >cost and when they take one look at all the bullshit they will have to do >and all the extra expense they will have to pay for not using poisons the >small farmer will run. Organic food is about 1% of the game. Do you >really think the USDA is going to put their arm around the organic farmer >and help them along. (JOKE) They are in bed with the big farming business >and chemical companys. Do you think the ag. guys want to stop checking >Menthol bromide spraying to go check some organic farmer that is not using >anything harmful . I think even those that wanted teeth will be greatly >disappointed when the USDA comes out with their idea of what organic is . >The USDA is pushing DNA changing of life forms as the new fronteer. They >are taking over our certifiers and the certifiers will become domicile >sheep being lead around by government enforcement on a path they do not >want to follow . They are putting stuff in this bill that will hurt the >small farmer and burden him . Any one that thinks $5000 anual sells is >giving considered concern to the small farmer is heartless and this is >absurd and if put in the act it will take a act of congress to change it. >this is no game it WILL be a very real hardship on the small farmer that >the USDA says they are trying to protect. It is easy for the big boys >(Dole.hines ,gurber) to be organic and grab market share and soon there >will be no small organic farmers and that is to bad . It would have be a >nice niche where small growers could stay on the small farms. but big >fish will eat little fish and life go on. > > >At 10:08 PM 10/8/97 +1000, David Hine wrote: >>Hi all >>There is a feeling of injustice amongst some of the posts on this issue. Sal >>has been prominent in criticizing the impact on small growers - in this >>case organic growers. >>Organic growers are not alone in being asked to provide evidence/meet >>standards on their food production methods and facilities. > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 8 18:45:54 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA17901; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:45:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA14070; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id SAA04633 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id SAA04626 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dakar.orstom.sn ([192.136.53.15]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id SAA27342 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:25:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from yoff.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by dakar.orstom.sn (8.8.4/jtpda-5.2) with UUCP id WAA04686 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:20:38 GMT Received: by yoff.yoff.sn (UUPC/extended 1.11q); Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:19:50 EDT Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 21:19:49 EDT From: "APECSY apecsy" Message-ID: <343c3136.yoff@yoff.yoff.sn> To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: pvc_sewage_pipes_and_soil_quality Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 103 The commune of Yoff, which is a part of the capital city of Dakar, Senegal, has a serious sewage disposal problem, a rapidly growing population, which is now en gaged and will in future be more engaged in urban agriculture. In the absence of a sewage system (only septic tanks) the cheapest solution is t o install narrow guage polyvinal choride sewage pipes, with the eventual intenti on of pumping the sewage to unbuilt land by the airport where it might be treate d and used in growing food. Does anyone know whether, over the long term, these pipes degrade in a way that releases PCB's into the soil? Is PCV dangerous only when it is incinerated? The town is built on sandy soil along a fishing beach. Almost sweet groundwater is less then 15 feet below the surface very near the beach. Marian Zeitlin, for the Yoff EcoCommunity Program -- APECSY apecsy E-Mail: apecsy@yoff.yoff.sn To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 08:17:59 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA04172; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:17:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA10143; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id HAA19870 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:56:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id HAA19824 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hqmail.usda.gov ([199.128.3.90]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id HAA18454 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from x400@localhost) by hqmail.usda.gov (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA27312 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:55:17 -0400 (EDT) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text X400-MTS-Identifier: [/P=GOV+USDA/A=ATTMAIL/C=US/;343CD50C.7F18.3AB4.000] Content-Identifier: Medicinal Herbs UA-Content-Id: Medicinal Herbs Autoforwarded: FALSE Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Personal Received: by ATTMAIL; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 7:50:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 7:50:00 -0400 From: Marc Safley Subject: Medicinal Herbs To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu (Receipt Notification Requested) Message-Id: <343CD50C.7F18.3AB4.000@MHS> X-Mailer: Worldtalk (4.1.1-p1)/MIME Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 104 We have had an enquiry from staff of the World Bank regarding the culture of medicinal herbs and market establishment for those herbs. If anyone is interested in being contacted regarding their experience with this sector of agriculture, please send me your name, address, and telephone number or email address. Thank you. Marc Safley, Ph.D. Director (Acting) Ecological Sciences Division Natural Resources Conservation Service P.O. Box 2890 Washington, DC 20013 marc.safley@usda.gov To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 08:18:59 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA04193; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA10322; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id HAA19818 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id HAA19809 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu (fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.52]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id HAA18448 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:55:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (rkimsey@localhost) by fenrir.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id HAA19612 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:55:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 06sep94) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id BAA09088 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from clgrps05.agt.net (clgrps05.agt.net [198.161.156.16]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id BAA09156 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sdwkpt01-port-18.agt.net ([204.209.198.56]) by mail.telusplanet.net with SMTP id <268787-22247>; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:32:36 -0600 X-Sender: jwright@mail.agt.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: From: jwright@telusplanet.net Subject: night cultivation experiment X-Mailer: Message-Id: <97Oct8.233236-0600_mdt.268787-22247+62383@mail.telusplanet.net> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:32:29 -0600 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 105 Thinking about the recent request for info about night cultivation, it occurred to me that it would be easy to test the efficacy of the method on one's own farm, without spending hundreds of dollars on night vision goggles. It's too late to try it here, because little germination is happening as winter approaches, but farmers in warmer places could still try it. Prior to a dark night, cloudy and/or no moon, prepare the cultivation equipment and have it ready to go at the edge of a field that needs cultivation. Once there is no trace of light, have someone hold a flashlight on the far side of the field and drive the cultivation equipment (with *all* lights off) towards it across the field, making one or more passes (more than one could get complicated). Better yet, aim towards a distant light to avoid introducing even a trace on extra light. (The advantage of a flashlight holder would be having someone to wave frantically before you tore out the far fence). ;-) Next morning, stake the cultivated portion with flagging, and cultivate the rest of the field. I would think that any improvement in weed control large enough to justify the extra trouble of night cultivation would show up as a visible qualitative difference. Someone with resources could do some quantitative sampling. If there are farmers on the list who have fields in the appropriate state, we could have some interesting anecdotal information within a month. (And what is data but a large collection of anecdotal information) ;-) If there are farmers interested in trying it I'd be interested in hearing the results. Please send a copy to me directly, as I'll be signing of sanet shortly for a few weeks. Jim Wright Box 129 Lougheed Alberta Canada T0B 2V0 403 386-2479 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 11:32:42 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA07502; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA03267; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA10394 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA10297 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:09:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from moose.uvm.edu (moose.uvm.edu [132.198.101.60]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA27839 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gnu.uvm.edu (gnu.uvm.edu [132.198.101.64]) by moose.uvm.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA38560 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:09:35 -0400 Received: from localhost (gharris@localhost) by gnu.uvm.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA94140 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:09:34 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: gnu.uvm.edu: gharris owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:09:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gwyneth E. Harris" X-Sender: gharris@gnu.uvm.edu To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Subject: Land Trusts Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 106 Hello people... I'm working on an Ag policy project studying the structure and impacts of Land Trusts. Does anyone have any ideas on web-sites to visit, organizations to contact, books to read or any other resources? LEt me know! - Thanks a lot... - Gwyneth Harris (gharris@zoo.uvm.edu) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 11:49:04 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA08812; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA08078; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA20071 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA20021 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [206.58.180.214] ([206.58.180.214]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA28279 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.desktop.org (206.58.180.210) by [206.58.180.214] with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.2); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:24:31 -0600 Message-id: Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:27:42 -0600 Subject: ALLIANCE JOB POSTING From: jcrosby@desktop.org (Jonda Crosby) To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Cc: kbgriffi@facstaff.wisc.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 107 >>From: Suzi Wilkins >>Subject: ALLIANCE JOB POSTING >>Sender: mrba@igc.org >> >>The Alliance Coordinating Council met this past weekend and finalized >this >>job description. Please pass it along to any qualified candidates that >you >>know and help us spread this request to your normal contacts. Thanks! >> >> >>POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT >>EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR >>MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ALLIANCE >> >> >>The Mississippi River Basin Alliance is an equal opportunity >>employer. >> >>BACKGROUND ON THE ALLIANCE: >>Created in 1992, the Mississippi River Basin Alliance works to >>protect the river and the people living in its 33-state basin. It is >>an interactive network of over 90 diverse organizations and >>numerous individuals who connect social justice and >>environmental agendas. For more information about the >>Alliance, visit our web site at >> >> >>PURPOSE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR POSITION: >>The Executive Director manages and directs the operations and >>activities of the Alliance and carries out the policies of the >>Alliance, as established by its Coordinating Council. >>The Executive Director is responsible for fundraising, >>implementing Alliance programs and activities, hiring and >>supervising Alliance staff, office management, financial >>management, administration, outreach, and developing and >>guiding the Coordinating Council in carrying out its >>responsibilities. The Executive Director reports to the Alliance >>Coordinating Council. >> >> >>ESSENTIAL DUTIES: >>In consultation with the Council and Alliance members, the >>Executive Director: >> >>- Fundraises to achieve significant growth and development of >> the Alliance; >>- Provides guidance, direction, and vision necessary to carry >> out projects and programs, consistent with the policies of >> the Alliance; >>- Develops and recommends for Council adoption short- and >> long-term objectives, goals, and plans of the Alliance; >>- Evaluates and reports to the Council on the results of Alliance >> programs and fundraising activities in light of the >> objectives, goals, and plans, and implements new >> measures as necessary; >>- Is responsible for the Alliance's financial management and >> administration; >>- Maintains effective communications among staff, >> Coordinating Council, and Alliance members; >>- Promotes the Alliance and builds its membership; >>- Articulates and communicates Alliance positions on >> Mississippi River basin issues. >> >> >>QUALIFICATIONS: >>- Minimum of 5 years experience in nonprofit leadership; >>- Proven record in nonprofit fundraising; >>- Proven organization, leadership, financial management, and >> staff management skills; >>- In-depth understanding of national, regional, and state >> environmental policy formulation processes; >>- Proven ability to analyze and influence public policy issues; >>- Familiarity with grassroots organizing and advocacy and with >> campaign organizing; >>- Strong communication skills, including writing, speaking, >> media relations, and public relations; and >>- Ability to work with culturally diverse constituencies. >> >>This is a demanding and stressful job with tremendous potential >>for growth, requiring overtime, travel, energy, persistence, and >>commitment. >> >> >>SALARY: Commensurate with experience >> >> >>CLOSING DATE: November 15, 1997 >>**************************************************************** >>Mississippi River Basin Alliance (314) 822-4114 >>Box 3878 (314) 821-4292 - fax >>St. Louis, MO 63122 mrba@igc.apc.org >> http://www.mrba.org/mrba/ >>**************************************************************** >> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 12:17:01 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA09275; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA15237; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA10258 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:58:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA10199 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rs8.loc.gov (rs8.loc.gov [140.147.248.8]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA29424 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (mkwe@localhost) by rs8.loc.gov (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA134072; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:56:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:56:36 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marlene B. Kweskin" To: "Gwyneth E. Harris" cc: Sustainable Agriculture Network Subject: Re: Land Trusts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 108 Gwyneth- This sounds like a great project. I have some infomration that might be of use to you. In 1994 I completed a survey of New York State land trusts involved in farmland protection projects. At the time, I was working with the NY State branch of the Land Trust Alliance formulating an agenda for LTA to assist land trusts in their farmland protection projects. I then analyzed the data for my graduate thesis, investigating ways in which land trusts might be addressing issues of preserving agricutlure in their communities as part of their goals of preserving land use patterns. Please feel free to contact me directly so that I can provide you with more information about this project. I would like to learn more about your research goals, as well. -Marlene Kweskin On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Gwyneth E. Harris wrote: > Hello people... > I'm working on an Ag policy project studying the structure and > impacts of Land Trusts. Does anyone have any ideas on web-sites to visit, > organizations to contact, books to read or any other resources? LEt me > know! - Thanks a lot... > - Gwyneth Harris (gharris@zoo.uvm.edu) > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > ######################################################## # Marlene Kweskin # # National Digital Library Program # # Library of Congress # # Washington, DC 20540-1300 # # email: mkwe@loc.gov # # voice: 202/707-3308 fax: 202/707-0815 # ######################################################## To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 12:18:42 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA09307; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:18:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA15783; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:13:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA09938 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:57:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA09889 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA29417 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:57:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s06.term1.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.136]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA17611; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971009085657.007b8280@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 08:56:57 -0700 To: Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments onUSDA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov In-Reply-To: <971008115434_845787164@emout08.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 109 I love when this guy posts because he makes my case for me. The USDA /NOP is not going to benefit the small farmer and will force him out it is set up for the big boys. . When this thing started we ask what about the small farmer and were told don't worry there will always be a place in organic growing for small farmers sal . Well the $5000 gross is not what I call a help for a small farmer. These folks also want to make the small organic farmer a factory farmer and like this guy says if you can't pay you can not play. He says if we cannot afford this new tax on organic farmers we can not call yourself organic even if you are .This guy is supposed to be working for us but I feel he is working for the big boys and he is saying if a a organic farmer is not serious if he is poor and fighting to keep his land he is not really an organic grower. That covers a lot of folks. . This is sad. and the problem is that once this Act goes though it will take a act of congress to change it. We don't need to make more problem for the small farmer. He acts like $250 here and $400 there is nothing but to some folks they need every cent to live their organic farming lives. They are making the organic farmer pay for this whole ball of wax and the smaller farmer may be lost in the suffle. And where does he get this $250 out of his own head that is where and that is where the NOP must have gotten the $5000 gross is a small farm. This is too important to be making up numbers we are dealing with people lives.It is not fair to change the rules on the small organic farmer . He is not stating it will only cost $250 because it is fact he is just trying to sweet talk you all. I live in Ca. and even here in the heart of organic land it is hard to find a close inspector that does not have to travel long distances what about the poor small grower in the big timber Wy. where the inspector will have to travel many hours and have to charge the small farmer gas,salery,motal room,inspection and time it takes to do paper work and this will cost the poor farmer even if he is doing the good he knows. We not only have to support our self be now we have to support all these other folks. Don't let this guy sweet talk you .once this act is in it will take a act of congress to change it. the $5000 small farm exemption is a Joke and a insult to all those poor folks fighting to keep their farms. It is sad that the money and the paper work is more important than a mans=20 rightousness. Small Farmers will be persecute because they can not afford to play and did not dot their i or cross their ts and not for any wrong they have done. Some folks that grow organic will be persecuted just for telling folk the truth that they are organic. Organic farmer still have to do what other farmers do like complete paper work on all pesticide they use if it is organic or not also they have to follow all the others rules that other farmers follow but this is a extra tax on them alone for what they DON'T USE . He says there is are people selling organic that are lying. This may be true. There are people that steal be we don't search every ones house in the whole US because a few folks steal. We should not search every organic grower place in the whole US year after year after year and charge them money for it because a few people may lie. Some of us cannot afford it. Even when we do search some ones house we have a warrant and have to show just cause because it is private property but here they want to search every organic farm and charge us to do it just because some one may be a lier. HEY THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY .I say if some one knows an organic farmer is lying let someone know like the state or a certifier so they get a warrant and check him out but don't search and tax and burden every good organic grower in the whole of the US because someone may be lying. A lot of us can not afford it. The history of the presentUSDA?NOP act is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over small organic growers.=20 > >Everyone starts farming with little or nothing, except for those who inherit >land, equipment, money, etc. In no way is organic farming going to even out >the material differences generated by cunning, previous generations, hard >work or greed. And in a real sense, the greater inheritance that anyone can >pass on to our children is the ability to think, set ones direction for the >future and be innovative. Life is really what we each make of it. =20 Like it >or not, how our life is in the USA, in the latter part of the=20 twentieth >century is the individuals choice, each farmer or person's choice. If a >farmer does not make over $5000 gross a year, it is their choice and they are >entitled to do so. If the gross income is less than $5000 annually, under >OFPA, they still have to conform to the standards, etc, but do not have to be >certified. If you have a gross over $5000 per year and want to use the label >"organic", my suggestion is join the group and pay $250-$275 for organic >certification. If a potential organic farmer is serious about commercial >organic farming for a livelihood, you will be amply repaid for your >certification expenses. A potential organic farmer will gain more knowledge >on the practices and systems of organic farming by understanding the National >Standards. A potential organic farmer knows that their market has a degree >of protection from farmers and handlers selling organic who have not met the >recognized and agreed upon standards of organic farming and handling. > Consumers recognize the certified organic farmer as meeting their >expectations and being willing to meet the National Organic Standards. =20 > >Again Sal, I would like to indicate my appreciation for your viewpoints and >right to express them. Perhaps, the opportunity I have always seen in my >life is to define a problem and work with others to seek a solution that >benefits the consensus. Condemning the US government, the California State >government or the certifiers without a factual basis is to me an error in >tactics. I am in agreement that passage of OFPA was a preemptive move by >some organizations and members of the organic community without offering >consultation with organic farmers. Organic farmers made the best of it, by >rewriting the original legislation (recognizing the consumers need for a >clear, consistent and uniform national definition) and came up with a=20 very >clear and effective piece of national legislation, OFPA. We have taken 6 >years to get Proposed Rules out, which has allowed the organic=20 handling >business, organic consumer base and organic farming to mature. The practices >and sophistication of organic farmers and the organic market place between >six years ago and now is immense. Issuing of the Proposed Rule in a real >sense is right on time. We are now communicating by email, which likewise >with the internet, six years ago virtually did not exist. The impact is >gigantic, of highest priority democratically empowering large segments of >the US population to participate in a Final Organic Rule. =20 > >I think your strategic defense of small and I would include moderate size >farms is excellent, but again tactically structured incorrectly.=20 Anyone >intending to organic farm at the $5000 or even $25,000 level needs to look at >the realistic cost. With few exceptions cost of production including >shipment to the market is at least two thirds to three quarters of the gross >(which does include in the analysis a nominal pay scale to all production >workers including the owner(s)) which means very little net income to a farm >family in these gross income categories--$1,250 and $6,250 net incomes >annually at 75% cost of production respectively. The annual net income for a >defined "small farm" in California (gross $250,000 being the maximum) yields >a net income of $62,500. A goodly and reasonable net income even for >California although we all know their are many uncontrollable variables. To >me all these calculations are theory, that only come into viable economic >reality with efficient biological, labor, mechanical and marketing management >and skills. In fact, the Organic Foods Production Act, if implemented as it >is written, is the only breath of fresh air for small to moderate size farms >in years. I think all of our efforts should be to implement with the least >cost and paperwork consistent with a quality National Program=20 possible. > Rather then me complain about the inadequacy of governments, certifiers or >the Organic Program, my work is to make it work for certified organic farmers >handling operations and consumers. =20 > >Best Regards, Eric > > > > >In a message dated 97-10-05 07:14:43 EDT, sals@rain.org writes: > ><<<< Subj: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and >handlers > Date: 97-10-05 07:14:43 EDT > From: sals@rain.org (sal) > To: Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > CC: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov >=20 > It has been said of me that I sound angry.I am and in this time in > history when the family farm is disappearing in record numbers.the UDSA/NOP > is being cruel and heartless saying that a small farm is $5000 or less and > anything over $5000 should be taxed. In this day of farm aid, in this day > while we are trying to get to help to small family farmers and save the > small farm the last thing they need is a tax if they chose to farm organic. > This just showed me that the USDA/NOP is a heartless bunch of people that > only want to tax the poor in order to support their own exsistance. >=20 >. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 13:36:33 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA11458; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA07526; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id MAA17929 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id MAA17815 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gov.pe.ca ([198.167.55.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id MAA01809 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PEIGOVT-Message_Server by gov.pe.ca with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:54:52 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:57:52 -0400 From: Bob MacGregor To: Erorganic@aol.com, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, sals@rain.org Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 110 I presume that the standards will apply to imported organic produce as well. As long as there is a significant price differential between conventionally (chemically) produced food and organic product, there will be incentive for foreign suppliers to penetrate US markets. If the market for organic foods continues to expand at the rate it has been for the past decade, it will undoubtedly attract the interest of more and more foreign suppliers. How will certification of offshore organic producers be controlled/assured? I have little faith in the ability of some (developing?) countries to enforce honest certification. Unfortunately, I suspect the burden of proof might be on the US. That is, the US might be in contravention of international trade rules if it tried to close the border to foreign-source organic products. But, how would US inspectors or consumers be able to assure that these goods were really produced by acceptable, organic methods? I welcome knowledgeable feedback to satisfy my curiosity. BOB rdmacgregor@gov.pe.ca To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 19:33:55 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA19291; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA27584; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA20269 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:06:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA20238 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net (altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net [193.67.237.6]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA13314 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net by altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net via grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net [193.67.237.11] with ESMTP id XAA28369 (8.8.5/3.24); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:06:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gd99-6.Gouda.NL.net by grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net via gd99-6.Gouda.NL.net [193.79.241.231] with SMTP id XAA28080 (8.8.4/3.2); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:06:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199710092106.XAA28080@grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Frits v/d Laan" To: sal Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:07:44 +1 Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmersan Reply-to: F.vd.Laan@inter.nl.net CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu In-reply-to: <3.0.2.32.19971009110616.007be870@rain.org> References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 111 > Say if > they can test food why do they burden the poor organic farmer to see that > he is organic. Test the food. bottom line. they can check an organic > farmer place, make him pay for inspections and make him do all the paper > work but if he does not pass the food test the food is not organic. Don't forget that you cannot test on artificial synthetic nutrients, and if you don't know what pesticides to look for you can't find them either. (BTW the plants I produce cannot be eaten) Frits v/d Laan Certified Organic Horticulture http://web.inter.nl.net/users/F.vd.Laan/ The Netherlands (no spamming) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 19:33:55 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA19295; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:33:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA27594; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA20253 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:06:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA20216 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:06:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net (altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net [193.67.237.6]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA13307 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net by altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net via grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net [193.67.237.11] with ESMTP id XAA28357 (8.8.5/3.24); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:06:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gd99-6.Gouda.NL.net by grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net via gd99-6.Gouda.NL.net [193.79.241.231] with SMTP id XAA28075 (8.8.4/3.2); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:06:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199710092106.XAA28075@grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Frits v/d Laan" To: Bob MacGregor Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:07:44 +1 Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers an Reply-to: F.vd.Laan@inter.nl.net CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 112 > I presume that the standards will apply to imported organic produce as > well. // > it will undoubtedly attract the interest of more and more > foreign suppliers. How will certification of offshore organic producers > be controlled/assured? > I have little faith in the ability of some (developing?) countries to enforce > honest certification. For the EU the rules are that they product from a foreign country can be called organic if it is certified using the control methodes from the importing country. > I welcome knowledgeable feedback to satisfy my curiosity. > BOB You got some Frits v/d Laan Certified Organic Horticulture http://web.inter.nl.net/users/F.vd.Laan/ The Netherlands (no spamming) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 19:33:58 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA19302; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:33:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA27604; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA20162 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA20096 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net (altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net [193.67.237.6]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA13297 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net by altrade.nijmegen.inter.nl.net via grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net [193.67.237.11] with ESMTP id XAA28305 (8.8.5/3.24); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:05:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gd99-6.Gouda.NL.net by grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net via gd99-6.Gouda.NL.net [193.79.241.231] with SMTP id XAA28059 (8.8.4/3.2); Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:05:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199710092105.XAA28059@grootstal.nijmegen.inter.nl.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Frits v/d Laan" To: "APECSY apecsy" Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:07:43 +1 Subject: Re: pvc_sewage_pipes_and_soil_quality Reply-to: F.vd.Laan@inter.nl.net CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu In-reply-to: <343c3136.yoff@yoff.yoff.sn> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 113 > The commune of Yoff, which is a part of the capital city of Dakar, Senegal, has > a serious sewage disposal problem, a rapidly growing population, which is now en > gaged and will in future be more engaged in urban agriculture. > > In the absence of a sewage system (only septic tanks) the cheapest solution is t > o install narrow guage polyvinal choride sewage pipes, with the eventual intenti > on of pumping the sewage to unbuilt land by the airport where it might be treate > d and used in growing food. > > Does anyone know whether, over the long term, these pipes degrade in a way > that releases PCB's into the soil? Is PCV dangerous only when it is incinerated? Also by production it is dangerous. PVC also doesn't like UV (sunlight) and Oxigen. Here in the Netherlands PE pipes are used for sewage, these pipes are not as stiff as PVC, have a thick wall so they don't get damaged easely and if the do its somewhat easyer to fix them. We had a problem here (holland) with PVC drinkingwater pipes that pesticides got into the drinkingwater true the pipewall. > > Marian Zeitlin, for the Yoff EcoCommunity Program Frits v/d Laan Certified Organic Horticulture http://web.inter.nl.net/users/F.vd.Laan/ The Netherlands (no spamming) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 19:33:59 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA19307; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA27609; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA20805 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA20754 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA13334 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.46]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id QAA24119 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:13:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <343D548C.318E@acnet.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 16:02:52 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: [Fwd: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers -Reply] Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 114 Message-ID: <343D52BB.1119@acnet.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:55:07 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob MacGregor Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers -Reply References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob MacGregor wrote: > How will certification of offshore organic producers > be controlled/assured? If you read the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), you will find that it stipulates that any country which ships food labeled "organic" or "natural" to the U.S. must have in place a set of legal disposition which are equivelent to the OFPA, in order for those products so labeled to be accepted for sale in the U.S. market. (Once again, as stipulated in the OFPA), this means that certifying bodies are recognized, that they must meet certain standards, register with the federal government and be regulated by it. Beyond (and before) the OFPA, each buyer will state which certifiers she or it is willing to accept certifications from. Incidently, some months ago I loaned my only copy of the Mexican equivilent to the OPFA to Eric Kindberg (Erorganic@aol.com) who asked for it and promised to copy and send it back immediately. Perhaps this will serve to remind him that I'm still waiting, if not holding my breath. -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 19:35:41 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA19337; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA27927; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 19:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id PAA02455 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id PAA02417 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:48:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pilot16.cl.msu.edu (pilot16.cl.msu.edu [35.9.5.26]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id PAA09828 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:48:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bossy.ippsr.msu.edu ([35.8.71.220]) by pilot16.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/MSU-2.10) id PAA77307; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:48:09 -0400 Message-ID: <343D3543.423D9576@pilot.msu.edu> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:49:23 -0400 From: John Valenti Organization: Michigan State University X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: organic investing X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <0B3BBD23B506D11196AE00609704120103E352@potato.cfarm.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------1AC3A676E145FCEF09068333" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 115 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1AC3A676E145FCEF09068333 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alec McErlich (alec@cfarm.com) writes: > See article " There's Big Green in Organic Food; Business Week / Oct 6, > 1997 pg 170 for list of traded companies, their stock price and PER - > Hain Food Group, Organic Food Products, United Natural Foods, Westbrae > Natural, Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats Markets This article is on the web at http://www.businessweek.com/1997/40/b3547144.htm But retrieve it quickly, it looks like they archive articles after a few weeks and then charge to view them. -jav --------------1AC3A676E145FCEF09068333 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for John Valenti Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: John Valenti n: Valenti;John org: IPPSR, Michigan State University adr: 321 Berkey Hall;;;E. Lansing;MI;48824;USA email;internet: valenti@pilot.msu.edu title: Systems Analyst tel;work: 517-355-6672x117 tel;fax: 517-432-1544 tel;home: 517-651-5235 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE end: vcard --------------1AC3A676E145FCEF09068333-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 21:23:18 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA22102; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA19967; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id UAA13663 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id UAA13609 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id UAA19872 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.44]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id UAA13629 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:05:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <343D89E7.3622@acnet.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 19:50:31 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: [Fwd: Re: comments onUSDA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------362A6C297A8F" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 116 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------362A6C297A8F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx --------------362A6C297A8F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <343D84AF.45A@acnet.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 19:28:15 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sal Subject: Re: comments onUSDA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers References: <3.0.2.32.19971009085657.007b8280@rain.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit sal wrote: > > I love when this guy posts because he makes my case for me. ...Well > the $5000 gross is not what I call a help for a small farmer. You can't live on that much less farm - DH > This guy is supposed to be working for us but > I feel he is working for the big boys Nah, he's working for Eric. > the problem is that once this Act goes though it will take a > act of congress to change it. So why don't you get off your ass and on your feet - Out of the shade and into the heat? (so they say). > We don't need to make more problem for > the small farmer. He acts like $250 here and $400 there is nothing I've got news for you - he's poorer than you are. > ... where does > he get this $250 out of his own head > Don't let this guy sweet talk you. Yeah, I found that out. > It is sad that the money and the paper work is more important than a > mans rightousness. Who said they are? Where are your balls? (Sorry - can't think of another way to accurately express that point). > He says there is are people > selling organic that are lying. This may be true. There are even people selling truely organic lying. But there is a constitutional issue here. No one - government included, can rightfully appropriate the use a common word (like organic or natural) in or out of commerce, nor mandate certification of a claim that may well be true on it's own merit, just as buyers can not be prohibited from buying only organic products certified by the ISIO (I Swear It's Organic) organization instead of non-certified organic, if that's what they choose to do. The law can and should be tested in court once it's inacted and if anyone really cares about this issue, they ought to set out to do that, set up shop and drum up the support required to fight that effectively, instead of just fiddling around on the internet through a couple of list servers that most people don't read anyway - although those lists may not be a bad place to start. (They're just a bad place to quit). Where is government's faith in the market? Why is government messing with what ain't broke, creating additional burocracies and a greater burden on the tax payer, instead of going after the infractors? Yeah, Sal doesn't lack arguments (maybe just guts) and spreads them too thick, in the wrong places and with no real follow through. (Could it be that he DOES actually have a hidden war plan? Stay tuned for the next episode of Anger Man). -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx --------------362A6C297A8F-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 21:39:54 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA23756; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:39:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA23329; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id VAA22694 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:13:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id VAA22644 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from green.indy.net (green.indy.net [199.3.65.18]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id VAA20821 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from indy1.indy.net (root@indy1.indy.net [199.3.65.5]) by green.indy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA20015; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:12:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (ip75-61.ts.indy.net [199.3.75.61]) by indy1.indy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA28599; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:12:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <343D8110.3192@indy.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 20:12:48 -0500 From: Rich Molini Reply-To: richmo@indy.net Organization: IndyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-IndyNet (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: APECSY apecsy CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: pvc_sewage_pipes_and_soil_quality References: <343c3136.yoff@yoff.yoff.sn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 117 APECSY apecsy wrote: > > The commune of Yoff, which is a part of the capital city of Dakar, Senegal, has > a serious sewage disposal problem, a rapidly growing population, which is now en > gaged and will in future be more engaged in urban agriculture. > > In the absence of a sewage system (only septic tanks) the cheapest solution is t > o install narrow guage polyvinal choride sewage pipes, with the eventual intenti > on of pumping the sewage to unbuilt land by the airport where it might be treate > d and used in growing food. > > Does anyone know whether, over the long term, these pipes degrade in a way > that releases PCB's into the soil? Is PCV dangerous only when it is incinerated? > The town is built on sandy soil along a fishing beach. Almost sweet groundwater > is less then 15 feet below the surface very near the beach. > > Marian Zeitlin, for the Yoff EcoCommunity Program > -- > APECSY apecsy > E-Mail: apecsy@yoff.yoff.sn > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". Polyvinyl chloride cannot be chemically transformed into or degraded to polychlorinated biphenyl. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 9 23:47:22 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA25596; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA19750; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id XAA18650 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id XAA18640 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id XAA24295 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s26.term1.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.156]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA22029; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971009202908.007b9eb0@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 20:29:08 -0700 To: Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov From: sal Subject: Re: comments onUSDA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 118 >X-Sender: sals@rain.org >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) >Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 20:01:18 -0700 >To: dhinds@ucol.mx, sal >From: sal >Subject: Re: comments onUSDA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers > and handlers > >> >>> He says there is are people >>> selling organic that are lying. This may be true. >> >>There are even people selling truely organic lying. > Sal said== I don't know what you mean by this . If you grow organic you are not lying. > > >>But there is a constitutional issue here. No one - government >>included, can rightfully appropriate the use a common word (like organic >>or natural) in or out of commerce, nor mandate certification of a claim >>that may well be true on it's own merit, just as buyers can not be >>prohibited from buying only organic products certified by the ISIO (I >>Swear It's Organic) organization instead of non-certified organic, if >>that's what they choose to do. > Sal said =Boy I hope you are right. But my experience is that the commerce and buyers I deal with >now want that organic regestration number to protect themselfs and even if >they know you and you have been doing business for years with them you have >to have the number. I checked and found it to be so even now before the fed. law happens. . I >wish the darn certifiers would have been able to agree so all this crap >would not have to happen. All the people I have sold too trusted my >certifier and I was a happy camper now it is getting nuts. It is funny now >as an organic farmers I get an extra tax by the state and have to register >like a sex offender and have no privacy rights like a convicted felon and I >need to pay a third party to confirm my honesty and this is before the fed >law comes in to play. It seem like if you play by the rules they sock it to you and treat you like you were doing something wrong growing organic. . The trouble is organic is now such >big bussiness and means so much money to all these folks that the small farmer can no longer play. > >>The law can and should be tested in court once it's inacted and if >>anyone really cares about this issue, they ought to set out to do that, >>set up shop and drum up the support required to fight that effectively, >>instead of just fiddling around on the internet through a couple of list >>servers that most people don't read anyway - although those lists may >>not be a bad place to start. (They're just a bad place to quit). > Sal said . Let some one with some money test it. I have to follow this dam law that is why I am talking so hard. > >Where is government's faith in the market? Why is government messing >>with what ain't broke, creating additional burocracies and a greater >>burden on the tax payer, instead of going after the infractors? Sal said how do the french say it (let business take care of business >>Yeah, Sal doesn't lack arguments (maybe just guts) and spreads them too >>thick, in the wrong places and with no real follow through. (Could it >>be that he DOES actually have a hidden war plan? Stay tuned for the >>next episode of Anger Man). > Sal said : I think if the USDA tries to push irradiated and or , Lab made genetically >manipulated DNA food stuff on the organic folks it will be a good time to >start some shit. Maybe dump some organic tea in the Santa Barbara harbor for the national news or >and put out a Sal said === When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for the organic >growers to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to this >word organic, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and >equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, >a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should >declare the causes which impel them to the separation. etc. will you sign >it Douglas . Sal : I wonder how many John Henrys I can get if the USDA tries to >contaminate the Organic food with their Frankenstein or irradiated food games. the righous will not want to even use the word organic any more if that happens and that may be the time to strike. A lot of us never like that name organic anyway and think we should have made up a different name who would have thought they would steal our made up name organic and tax us for using it. : > > I heard that the USDA want to control the worlds food supply and thus >control the world but first they need to control the organic movement. turning them all into puppy shit .I hope that is not true but if it is we have to be ready to seize the moment. >>-- >> >>Douglas M. Hinds, Director General >>Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) >>(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) >>Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) >>Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) >>Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO >>U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) >>U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) >>Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) >>e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx >> >> >> >> > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 10 08:01:39 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id IAA13898; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA23451; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id HAA22850 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:35:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id HAA22804 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.stlnet.com (root@home.stlnet.com [209.96.6.15]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id HAA06114 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:35:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 209.96.3.105 (MOTNT02-105.stlnet.com [209.96.3.105]) by home.stlnet.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA21991 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 06:34:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <343E212A.732@stlnet.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 06:36:11 -0600 From: "A. E. Ashley" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: the Extention search engine Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 119 My apologies, I mis-handled the e-mail with the URL for the extention search engine. I meant to save it and try it out. If that could get reposted, it sounded like an outstanding resource, I sure would like to see it again. Andy Ashley ;-} To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 10 10:42:58 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA22825; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA25190; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA00728 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:13:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA00724 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from daisy.snet.net (mail.snet.net [204.60.7.83]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA13289 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:12:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 204.60.16.42 (nwhn02-sh13-port42.snet.net [204.60.16.42]) by daisy.snet.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/SNET-1.5) with SMTP id KAA11814 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <343DABBD.2F72@snet.net> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:14:53 +0600 From: Bill and Suzanne Duesing Reply-To: bduesing@snet.net Organization: Solar Farm Education X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Apple Season Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 120 Living on the Earth, October 10, 1997: Apple Season It's apple season‹the time of year when it¹s easy for almost everyone to see and taste the benefits of food produced nearby. This weekend, look for local apples at farmers' markets, roadside stands, cider mills, pick-your-own orchards, and some neighborhood markets. Fresh picked in nearby orchards, Macintoshes, Macouns, Cortlands, Baldwins, Northern Spies, Staymans, Winesaps and Ida Reds are all delicious. They have the wonderful firm texture and flavorful juiciness which distinguishes fruit grown close to home. Their patina, a faint milky bloom, says they are fresh. Oh, I know. You can go down to the supermarket any day in any season and find some red, yellow and green apples. They come from such places as Chile, South Africa, New Zealand and even as close as California and Washington State. They're very shiny because most of them are coated with waxes and maybe fungicides, too. These apples always look better than they taste. This time of year, you may even find some local apples in the supermarket, but they soon pick up the flavor of their surroundings. There's no way around it, the closer you get to the tree, the better the apple tastes. Apples get tired, sort of beaten up, if they travel too far, are roughly handled, or spend too much time in a plastic bag. Imagine if you were popped into a box with dozens of your kind, shipped 6,000 miles and then dumped out onto a supermarket shelf. You might be a little tired and beaten up too. Compare one of those apples with a just-picked Connecticut one. You'll soon recognize the effect that long-distance shipping has on taste. Apples are alive, respiring and carrying on other biological processes. (If you want proof of this, take the seeds out of an apple and plant them. After winter's cold, many of them will germinate.) Using an understanding of apples' breathing, local growers are able to keep them for more than three months with ³controlled atmosphere² storage. This system seals apples in a cool, air-tight room, and then replaces most of the oxygen with inert nitrogen. Without much oxygen, apples' respiration slows down, and with it, their biological imperative to rot so their seeds can get to the soil. If we want to enjoy the pleasures of these fresh apples, we need to support local orchards, or grow our own. However, it's not so easy to grow a good crop of apples. Fungus diseases like scab, and insects such as plum curculio, oriental fruit moth, and apple maggot also find this fruit delicious. Fortunately, a lot of progress is being made in reducing the chemicals needed to bring in a good crop. The University of Connecticut IPM (Integrated Pest Management) program helps orchardists to reduce the use of toxic sprays by monitoring insects and diseases carefully. The Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven is testing hardy, pest-resistant varieties which will produce a good crop without using pesticides. Some of these varieties are ideal for the home gardener. At High Hill Orchard in Meriden, Wayne Young uses compost and rock powders in a long-term, soil-building program, and is experimenting with compost sprays to control apple-scab fungus. Notice our double interest in reducing the use of toxic materials in agriculture. We would like our farmer neighbors to use fewer or no poisonous chemicals, and we'd like to eat fruit with fewer chemicals on it. The Macoun is our favorite apple- a wonderful mix of tart and sweet flavors, firm and crunchy. It is usually available for a limited time, so eat them while you can. Wayne Young says his favorite variety is whichever one is ³just ripe.² The Connecticut Department of Agriculture publishes a list of state apple orchards, and a listing of farmers' markets. To get these lists, send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to the attention of the Marketing Division, Department of Agriculture, State Office Building, Hartford, CT 06106. There are two lessons to be learned with every bite of a local apple. First, local food tastes better. And second, in order to have local food, we need to have an ecological agriculture that we can live with. This is Bill Duesing, Living on the Earth © 1997, Bill Duesing, Solar Farm Education, Box 135, Stevenson, CT 06491 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 10 12:36:25 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA26354; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA28531; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id MAA19034 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:16:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id MAA18855 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout03.mail.aol.com (emout03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.94]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id MAA19929 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:16:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA17854; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:14:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:14:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971010121227_1833641165@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: JLISTS@wvnvm.wvnet.edu, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu cc: cvof@iquest.net, wfof@ptel.net, Sprinkraft@aol.com Subject: Re: comments on UDSA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and han Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 121 Hello, Making it $50,000 rather then $5000 is firstly contrary to OFMA as it is written. Secondly, there are so many direct marketers and even those selling to stores that are simply either not informed about the Organic Foods Production Act or existing certification agent organic standards or simply are deceiving the customer, that it is out of the question for me to support. The cost of certification is minimal. The purpose in OFPA is creat a consistent and uniform standard of farming and handling so the customer can without question the organic label. Why undermine the strongest card for all. Unquestionable integrity that is documentable. Best regards, Eric Kindberg The Organic Farmers Marketing Association at www.iquest.net/ofma/ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 10 12:44:24 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA27295; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA00997; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id MAA19964 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id MAA19840 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id MAA19942; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:16:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA26087; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:14:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971010121218_-628145587@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, cvof@iquest.net, wfof@ptel.net, Sprinkraft@aol.com Subject: Re: comments onUSDA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 122 In a message dated 97-10-09 11:57:22 EDT, Sals@rain.org writes: << Subj: Re: comments onUSDA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Date: 97-10-09 11:57:22 EDT From: sals@rain.org (sal) To: Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu CC: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov I love when this guy posts because he makes my case for me. The USDA /NOP is not going to benefit the small farmer and will force him out it is set up for the big boys. . eak: It is a pleasure to be your foil Sal. When this thing started we ask what about the small farmer and were told don't worry there will always be a place in organic growing for small farmers sal . Well the $5000 gross is not what I call a help for a small farmer. These folks also want to make the small organic farmer a factory farmer and like this guy says if you can't pay you can not play. He says if we cannot afford this new tax on organic farmers we can not call yourself organic even if you are . eak: When you buy diesel Sal, you pay a tax that does a service. When you take a plane you pay a tax that does a service. When you pay an annual property tax, it does a service. The quality and dependability of those services are on balance higher then what service you get when you go to a store and buy something. However, the basic difference is a public service must and should be impartial, be without prejudice and favoritism. Part of the payment for service is to make sure that prejudice and favoritism do not occur in carrying out the pupose. Fortunately, this government has in place an overal size and person neutral policy. That is what makes little guys like me able to have a fair chance. Now, as soon as someone thinks they have been wronged they want to change the rules. Logical. But by the same token, it is important to understand the Proposed Rules or Rules. Let me put it straight Sal. OFPA was passed by Congress in 1990. It is on balance the finest piece of organic legislation in the world and the finest environmental legislation that has been passed--that is not opinion, but I can back up line by line. This continuing conversation indicates you do not know its content, you do not know the processes and procedures built in OFPA as well as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrative Procdures Act, to make the USDA/NOP work as a National Program and to rectify the existing inequities and unfairness that exist within states. If your not willing to discuss issues that relate to reality, but would rather rant against taxes and cry over the need for every cent to make your farm sustain, it is fast coming time to move on to the issues, not your personal opinions. This guy is supposed to be working for us but I feel he is working for the big boys and he is saying if a a organic farmer is not serious if he is poor and fighting to keep his land he is not really an organic grower. That covers a lot of folks. eak: Wrong analysis Sal. I am continually becoming more informed and thinking about the options. You really tweak my curiosity. What is your average volume of sales weekly? I try to average $700-$800 over the last 6 years. Below $450 I wouldn't go to market. Then again, I have spent 30 hours a week for six years trying to get the USDA/NOP implemented to serve small to moderate size organic farmers and handlers and to provide a completely trustworthy label for customers. . This is sad. and the problem is that once this Act goes though it will take a act of congress to change it. We don't need to make more problem for the small farmer. He acts like $250 here and $400 there is nothing but to some folks they need every cent to live their organic farming lives. They are making the organic farmer pay for this whole ball of wax and the smaller farmer may be lost in the shuffle. And where does he get this $250 out of his own head that is where and that is where the NOP must have gotten the $5000 gross is a small farm. eak: Are you certified Sal? What are your certification costs? I am President of Arkansas OCIA, have been integral in administrating two different certification agencies, have spent the last years making myself knowledgeable of the cost and operation of every certification agency in the world. Even in California with higher costs, a small to moderate size vegetable farm certification, 2 to 25 acres, a small to moderate handling operation can be done for reasonable price. If the certifying agents operating in California cannot beat $250 a farm and $450 a handling operation on this scale, it is time for some competition. I prophesize that under the NOP their will be qualified certification agents that can do the job in California as they do in every other state for these prices. These prices are not the prices that are charged or should be charged to Danny Duncan, John Givens, Dale Coke, Bill Knudsen or Health Valley. Simply, because it takes longer and is more arduous to perform such certifications. The USDA/NOP adding $20 more to every farmer applying and $40 more to every handling operation applying easily raises $140,000 per year at the level of 5000 farm and 1000 handling operation certifications the first year. After the first accreditation round of certification agents, the next review is mandated within 5 years. Of the 50 certification agencies, that means 10 must be reviewed each year. Certainly, $14,000 apiece is enough to review the accreditation status of a certification agency and provide support for a qualified Peer Review Panel to assist the Secretary of Ag to make a determination. In fact, there should be excess funds to carry on some of the other USDA/NOP responsiblities indicated below. As the numbers of farmers, handlers and certification agencies grow so will the job responsibilities of the USDA/NOP and so will their annual budget. What are the responsibilities of the USDA/NOP staff once the proposed rule is finalized? The budget is defined by the work necessary. -To determination accreditation eligibility of all certification agent applicants. -To determine equivalence of ag products imported into the US to OFPA standards of farming, handling and certification. This is not determined on a case by case basis, but on a sovereign nation to nation basis, with the USDA/NOP making the determination and representing the interest of US farmer and handlers. A charge could be made to importers of organic products for these services. -To provide general information to the public on how the USDA/NOP operates, its standards, etc.--where public access to certification documents and residue testing are available -To inform other Federal and State agencies on the standards, qualified certified farms and handling operations and appropriate enforcement actions. The USDA/NOP with the exception of cease and desist on operation of an accredited certification agency will not actually enforce the organic standards and rules. The state governing official and the accredited organic certifying agents are the first line of complaint and enforcement per the guidelines laid down by the NOP. There power on one hand is in removing or granting certification status. The State governments have multiple powers to prosecute in the interest of the general welfare and issue cease and desist labeling orders. The accredited certifying agents will as agents of the US Government determine whether a farm or a handling operation meets the requirements to use the word "organic". With implementation of the USDA/NOP, FDA and its regional offices will enforce all processed food, dairy products, fish and shelled egg labeling using of the term "organic". USDA through FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) will enforce all red meat, poultry and processed egg labeling using the term "organic". PACA will do likewise for "organic" labeled vegetables and fruits. Fiber and field crops fall under multiple agencies that will carry out enforcement. There are State agencies that have similar powers of enforcing labeling descriptions who will do likewise. All state agencies will operate under enforcement guidelines established by the Secretary of Ag. There will be consistency and uniformity of application of enforcement, standard and requirement for certification guidelines nationwide. We have already reviewed what a State must go through to establish additional guidelines that must be approved by the Secretary of Ag as applicable to the specific State only. All State and Federal agencies will ultimately refer back to the master list of certified organic farms and handling operations maintained by the USDA/NOP to determine if a particular label can use the term "organic". The list of certified organic farms and handling operations as well as accredited certifying agents will be available on the Web, updated daily. -And lastly, the USDA/NOP has the responsibility to review any NOSB Proposed Amendments to the National List, provide for a public comment period on such amendments and publish final changes in the National List or regulatory Rules. That is the full extent of the USDA/NOP's responsibility under the Organic Food Production Act. Much of the USDA/NOP information program should be on the Web with some printed material. It always takes time and budget to setup a smooth running and cost effective program in any business or government. It is essential to have the persistent input of organic farmers and handlers nationwide. We must require, review and make sure that the National Organic Program truly is efficient and benefits its clientele. Within two years after OFPA's implementation, the USDA/NOP should be self sustaining and have a minimal of staff. The benefits to everyone will be immense, provide USDA/NOP is run efficiently and limits its work to its mandate by Congress. This is too important to be making up numbers we are dealing with people lives.It is not fair to change the rules on the small organic farmer . He is not stating it will only cost $250 because it is fact he is just trying to sweet talk you all. I live in Ca. and even here in the heart of organic land it is hard to find a close inspector that does not have to travel long distances what about the poor small grower in the big timber Wy. where the inspector will have to travel many hours and have to charge the small farmer gas,salery,motal room,inspection and time it takes to do paper work and this will cost the poor farmer even if he is doing the good he knows. eak: I find it informative to ask the farmer in Montana, Ohio, Colorado or Texas what their existing cost is for what size and type of operation? What improvement could be made? The biggest complaint I have gotten is the inspectors are not experienced enough in the type of farming or in organic farming or handling. Both farmers and handlers dislike paying people with less knowledge then they have to certify them. But let us remember these complaints are about now and the past years under the existing privately run, some for profit, some non-profit certification system. The USDA/NOP needs to be forcefully reminded that such ineptness is unacceptable. When it really hits the fan is when it is found that a California certified organic farmer or handler is certified by more lenient standards than an East Coast farmer or handler and vis a versa. USDA/NOP will solve this problem--a consistent and uniform national organic standard and method of organic certification. We not only have to support our self be now we have to support all these other folks. Don't let this guy sweet talk you .once this act is in it will take a act of congress to change it. eak: Correct. It will take an Act of Congress to change it. In the interest of the entire organic community, regulatory administration should not be allowed to change the content and purpose of the Organic Foods Production Act. This is why it is absolutely important to contribute informed public comment during the Proposed Rule public comment period. The Organic Farmers Marketing Association will be providing a side by side comparison of contradictions between the USDA/NOP Proposed Rule and OFPA on the OFMA Web site within one day of its issuance to the public. Written comparisons will be sent out to our mailing list of 15,000. the $5000 small farm exemption is a Joke and a insult to all those poor folks fighting to keep their farms. It is sad that the money and the paper work is more important than a mans righteousness. eak: No one every questioned a person's righteousness when he or she were directed to drive down the right side of the street. It is a set of rules so everyone is on an even playing field and a pedestrian (the consumer) knows how not to get hit. You are correct that all rules do get applied personally. However, they are for the general welfare and benefit and as such must be impartial, have rational criteria and be decided on and supported by reasonable consensus of those effected. Small Farmers will be persecute because they can not afford to play and did not dot their i or cross their ts and not for any wrong they have done. Some folks that grow organic will be persecuted just for telling folk the truth that they are organic. Organic farmer still have to do what other farmers do like complete paper work on all pesticide they use if it is organic or not also they have to follow all the others rules that other farmers follow but this is a extra tax on them alone for what they DON'T USE . eak: Everyone who thinks they have a better idea for themselves and others, often all others, sooner or later has to watch out for being self righteous. I, you and now millions of others know the use of synthetic chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, synthetic ingredients, processing aids, and food additives in processed foods has and is an error. We still have the status quo that have benefited from their use in place. Citizens still have the option of smoking or buying non certified organic products. If you can pass a law taxing synthetic pesticide/fertilizer use and using that tax to develop a National Organic Program, I think that would be in the public interest and I am ready to back such. If you are throwing out ideas great. If you are suggesting to torpedo really what is the only Congressional Act in many years that creates the potential for radical change in agricultural and land use practices in the US (including benefiting small to moderate farmers), as a friend once said take your proposal, wrap it up and chuck it as far as you can throw it. He says there is are people selling organic that are lying. This may be true. There are people that steal be we don't search every ones house in the whole US because a few folks steal. We should not search every organic grower place in the whole US year after year after year and charge them money for it because a few people may lie. Some of us cannot afford it. Even when we do search some ones house we have a warrant and have to show just cause because it is private property but here they want to search every organic farm and charge us to do it just because some one may be a lier. HEY THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY eak: Are you certified Sal? No one searches your farm during inspection. If they do and there have been instances of such overzealous inspections, that inspector needs to be reprimanded, if not removed from such a position. Have you had such invasions of your privacy Sal? Please inform OFMA of the certification agency and the inspectors name. email the information to cvof@iquest.net .I say if some one knows an organic farmer is lying let someone know like the state or a certifier so they get a warrant and check him out but don't search and tax and burden every good organic grower in the whole of the US because someone may be lying. A lot of us can not afford it. The history of the presentUSDA?NOP act is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over small organic growers. eak: Sorry you see the USDA/NOP that way. To make it clear, the USDA/NOP has yet to be implemented because we have tried to take into serious consideration public input such as you have made. If your having trouble in California, you must not be able to control your own State government and bureaucracy. You are simply scapegoating others for your own inadequacy to form a consensus in directing the State of California. Personally, if you don't mind a little information from outside California, many people think California organic vegetable farmers are doing very well. Many of them are not even certified, but just send their money in with no farm or handling plan and get registered "organic". They manage frequently to provide very stiff pricing competition for organic producers outside the state. Maybe your whole tirade is just a smoke screen to not have California farmers and handlers operate according to the USDA/NOP standards. Just makes a farmer ruminate over the back fence, doesn't it. Best in all your efforts, Eric Kindberg The Organic Farmers Marketing Association at www.iquest.net/ofma/ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 10 16:46:07 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA03910; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA15828; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:41:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id QAA17313 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id QAA17300 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.rain.org (root@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id QAA02105; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (s12.term2.sb.rain.org [198.68.144.172]) by coyote.rain.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA01021; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19971010131321.007b8100@rain.org> X-Sender: sals@rain.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:13:21 -0700 To: Erorganic@aol.com, sals@rain.org, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, Majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu From: sal Subject: Re: comments onUSDA/NOP cost and benefits to organic farmers and handlers Cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, cvof@iquest.net, wfof@ptel.net, Sprinkraft@aol.com In-Reply-To: <971010121218_-628145587@emout15.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 123 what does foil mean? > >eak: It is a pleasure to be your foil Sal. > >When this thing started we ask what about > the small farmer and were told don't worry there will always be a place > in organic growing for small farmers sal . Well the $5000 gross is not > what I call a help for a small farmer. These folks also want to make the > small organic farmer a factory farmer and like this guy says if you can't > pay you can not play. He says if we cannot afford this new tax on > organic farmers we can not call yourself organic even if you are . > >eak: When you buy diesel Sal, you pay a tax that does a service. When you >take a plane you pay a tax that does a service. When you pay an annual >property tax, it does a service. The quality and dependability of those >services are on balance higher then what service you get when you go to a >store and buy something. Maybe you are taxing the wrong folk as the certified organic farmer is all ready paying for his certification. And once I got a bill for over $200 just for the inspection let alone all the other costs because I would have to pay for the inspectors gas,time driving,food,room,time spent at my farm , time spent filling out paper work etc . then the certifier charges 100 and the local chapter 25 excused me that just got raised to $50. Then their is the state charge. and on and on and on. When will it ever end . and every year year after year. . here are some quotes for others beside me: Next time you go to grocery store and ask to buy some produce ask if its fresh ask the seller would you sign a declaration form under penalty of perjury subject to jail Ask that car dealer the same.....Will the saleman who sells your next suit of clothes who tells you that you look good in them do the same. Unfortunately we have lost trust in fellow human being, and make it federal case out of organics for the small producer is stupid. Why not reduce the need for annual inspections for growers that are not changing their operations, have been certified for years, have not had any problems and are not in a high risk area eg. surrounded by growers who use lots of chemicals. These people would still need to send in the paperwork and keep all the records but they could go a year without an on farm inspection. That would help reduce costs and still safequard the integrity of the system. This could only apply to growers under $50,000. in gross farm sales. I >>agree with a lot of what you had to say, specifically that it's no good >>to keep burdening the small organic farmer with more & more $$ fees. >>Also, that the consumer is the one left out of the paying scale here, >>since the middleman seems to be the one making the $$. Why does the farmer have to pay all the cost? If the gov't >>stopped commercial ag subsidies, then we would have TRUE costs of food in >>the marketplace, and organic wouldn't seem so high. > >eak: Wrong analysis Sal. I am continually becoming more informed and >thinking about the options. . GOOD ME TOO! . The >USDA/NOP adding $20 more to every farmer applying and $40 more to every >handling operation applying easily raises $140,000 per year at the level of >5000 farm and 1000 handling operation certifications the first year. After >the first accreditation round of certification agents, the next review is >mandated within 5 years. Of the 50 certification agencies, that means 10 >must be reviewed each year. Certainly, $14,000 apiece is enough to review >the accreditation status of a certification agency and provide support for a >qualified Peer Review Panel to assist the Secretary of Ag to make a >determination. In fact, there should be excess funds to carry on some of the >other USDA/NOP responsiblities indicated below. As the numbers of farmers, >handlers and certification agencies grow so will the job responsibilities of >the USDA/NOP and so will their annual budget .I grow fruit trees and it is seasonal . I have to make the money I make last the whole year and pay my bills and taxes and sometime it is touch and go. I am not a factory farmer like yourself and the trees only produce so much fruit and I do not push them to the max because I want my land to last . I may not be the best at making money but money is not my first love. I love the life . Still I do grow organic and feel I should be able to label as such even though I am not the money maker you are. I need what little money I make to live this good life and I feel every extra cent I have to spend. I organic grower should not have to pay 1 cent extra to grow and sell organic! Also the $20 is on top of what I am already paying. This is just another level of government we the small farmer have to support. .> >That is the full extent of the USDA/NOP's responsibility under the Organic >Food Production Act. Much of the USDA/NOP information program should be on >the Web with some printed material. Thanks for keeping us informed. >a smooth running and cost effective program in any business or government. > It is essential to have the persistent input of organic farmers and handlers >nationwide. We must require, review and make sure that the National Organic >Program truly is efficient and benefits its clientele. Within two years >after OFPA's implementation, the USDA/NOP should be self sustaining and have >a minimal of staff. The benefits to everyone will be immense, provide >USDA/NOP is run efficiently and limits its work to its mandate by Congress. > > >the $5000 small farm exemption is a Joke and a > insult to all those poor folks fighting to keep their farms. It is sad > that the money and the paper work is more important than a mans > righteousness. > >eak: No one every questioned a person's righteousness when he or she were >directed to drive down the right side of the street. It is a set of rules so >everyone is on an even playing field and a pedestrian (the consumer) knows >how not to get hit. You are correct that all rules do get applied >personally. However, they are for the general welfare and benefit and as >such must be impartial, have rational criteria and be decided on and >supported by reasonable consensus of those effected. if you are driving down the right side of the street you don't pay the fine only the wrong doers pay! I am being force to pay for the right I know not for any wrong. For instace, another issue you've raised, if not exactly in these terms, is that an organic farmer is being presumed guilty and forced to pay to prove his innocence. key word FORCED > > ><He says there is are people > selling organic that are lying. This may be true. There are people that > steal be we don't search every ones house in the whole US because a few > folks steal. We should not search every organic grower place in the > whole US year after year after year and charge them money for it because > a few people may lie. Some of us cannot afford it. Even when we do > search some ones house we have a warrant and have to show just cause > because it is private property but here they want to search every organic > farm and charge us to do it just because some one may be a lier. HEY > THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY > >eak: Are you certified Sal? No one searches your farm during inspection. If >they do and there have been instances of such overzealous inspections, that >inspector needs to be reprimanded, if not removed from such a position. Have >you had such invasions of your privacy Sal? Please inform OFMA of the >certification agency and the inspectors name. email the information to >cvof@iquest.net ok Eric can you explain to the good people what the inspector does if not search you farm ,just what is this inspection business if it is not a search of your farm what are these spot checks .I can understand a look at your record keeping and I can understand the inspector going over the rules with you but after you have heard them for 10 years paying for this over and over is only taxing me for nothing. Can they look under my bed ? They look every where for chemicals that are no where around. If you are looking for something that is not there it could take quite a bit of time. Could you tell us what inspection means as far as search and private property rights go . Thanks for taking the time Eric in answering some of our questions. You have to remember to a lot of folks this is new stuff or never really explained because intimidation is so much part of the process. Seem like they want to keep the organic grower scard or something. So you really think I need a certifier,an inspector and the federial gov . to vouch for my honesty and that I should pay them all what ever they ask and just shut up. Eric Kindberg > > >The Organic Farmers Marketing Association at www.iquest.net/ofma/ > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 10 20:26:55 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA09575; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:26:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA20313; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id UAA11689 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id UAA11617 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enaila.nidlink.com (root@enaila.nidlink.com [205.219.220.23]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id UAA09904 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:10:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hillnet1.nidlink.com (pm5-28.nidlink.com [206.96.73.35]) by enaila.nidlink.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA01819 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971010210510.00742e70@mail.nidlink.com> X-Sender: benbrook@mail.nidlink.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:05:10 -0400 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: Charles Benbrook Subject: A Suggestion Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 124 Interest among a few members of the list on issues arising from organic certification and the forthcoming regulations has blossomed to a point where it may be time for them to take the discussion to another list, more focused and deidcated to that topic. Sal's excellent web page is an obvious candidate if he can manage a "chat room" on the topic. Maybe one of the certifying organizations would volunteer to take on this task; when the NOP rule is published, we will need a dedicated forum to discuss, debate and sharpen responses. Moving this debate now while the juices are still flowing would be a good way to jump-start a new list. I would surely enjoy participating in the dialogue. In addition to substantive imblanace of the last 10 days or so, the tone and content of messages has not improved fast enough for my taste. So lets do a poll. I would love to see at least HALF of the 700-800? people who receive Sanet to weigh in with, if nothing else, a short message, with subject line: "Re More Debate Orgo Certification". In your message, say whatever you wish, but at a minimum, please post -- "Let the debate go on!" or "Enough for now." Hopefully this will help clarify whether the average SANET reader is interested in more discussion on organic certification and the topics that have been so thoroughly beaten to death of late. Over the last 5 years or so there have been maybe 3 or 4 times when SANET readers have had to rescue the list from a few people deeply interested in a narrow issue, or too stubborn to stop a pissing contest. Maybe its time again, maybe not. What do you think? chuck Note New New Address!!: Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice) Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax) 5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail] Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 11 00:13:44 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA12406; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA12701; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id XAA29331 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id XAA29196 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id XAA15188 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:56:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.44]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id XAA12473; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:02:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <343F053E.63E3@acnet.net> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:49:02 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Benbrook CC: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: A Suggestion References: <2.2.32.19971010210510.00742e70@mail.nidlink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 125 Charles Benbrook wrote: > > Interest among a few members of the list on issues arising from > organic certification and the forthcoming regulations has blossomed to a > point where it may be time for them to take the discussion to another list, > more focused and dedicated to that topic... I would surely enjoy > participating in the dialogue. > lets do a poll. I would love to see at least HALF of the 700-800? people > who receive Sanet to weigh in with, if nothing else, a short message, with > subject line: "Re More Debate Orgo Certification". > > In your message, say whatever you wish, but at a minimum, please > post -- > > "Let the debate go on!" or > > "Enough for now." Debate is not what's needed. What's needed is for like minded people to get together so that a position paper can be drawn up, a plan of attack / strategy agreed on and responsibilities for follow up delegated or voluntarily divided. My own point of view is that certification should NOT be mandatory and that the words "organic" and natural SHOULD be subject to a legal definition on the national (& international) level but NOT restricted to certified organic products. In other words: As I see it, organic is organic in principle, and not because a bureaucracy says it is, while CERTIFIED organic represents another level that may or may not be appropriate, depending on the needs and choices of the market itself. A grower may or may not need it to sell, just as a buyer may or may not be willing to pay for it. If non organic products are sold as organic, this is fraud and once proven, penalties can be applied. Any more than that is not only overkill, it's inefficient, unjustifiable, unconstitutional meddling that is already beginning to generate more injustice than it is designed to prevent, along with a supercilious, nit picking, parasitic class that knows more about squeezing personal benefit out of the situation than they do about healthy food or healthy anything. Once again - there's nothing wrong with certification, it's MANDATORY certification and appropriation of the words organic and natural that's out of line and unless this flaw in the law is reversed through organized action by concerned and morally literate parties, a lot of innocent people are going to suffer needlessly. I've trying to incite Sal to take the fight to court, but the battle really belongs to everybody capable of understanding the issue. -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 11 15:04:10 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA03285; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA20937; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:59:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id OAA19911 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:44:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id OAA19823 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:44:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (peggy931@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu [129.101.192.43]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id OAA07059 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:44:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (peggy931@localhost) by raven.csrv.uidaho.edu with SMTP (8.7.6/8.7.1) id LAA08866; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.csrv.uidaho.edu: peggy931 owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Peggy Adams X-Sender: peggy931@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu To: Charles Benbrook cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: More debate In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19971010210510.00742e70@mail.nidlink.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 126 It's been enlightening, but enough for now. On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Charles Benbrook wrote: > Interest among a few members of the list on issues arising from > organic certification and the forthcoming regulations has blossomed to a > point where it may be time for them to take the discussion to another list, > more focused and deidcated to that topic. Sal's excellent web page is an > obvious candidate if he can manage a "chat room" on the topic. Maybe one of > the certifying organizations would volunteer to take on this task; when the > NOP rule is published, we will need a dedicated forum to discuss, debate and > sharpen responses. Moving this debate now while the juices are still > flowing would be a good way to jump-start a new list. I would surely enjoy > participating in the dialogue. > > In addition to substantive imblanace of the last 10 days or so, the > tone and content of messages has not improved fast enough for my taste. So > lets do a poll. I would love to see at least HALF of the 700-800? people > who receive Sanet to weigh in with, if nothing else, a short message, with > subject line: "Re More Debate Orgo Certification". > > In your message, say whatever you wish, but at a minimum, please > post -- > > "Let the debate go on!" or > > "Enough for now." > > Hopefully this will help clarify whether the average SANET reader is > interested in more discussion on organic certification and the topics that > have been so thoroughly beaten to death of late. > > Over the last 5 years or so there have been maybe 3 or 4 times when > SANET readers have had to rescue the list from a few people deeply > interested in a narrow issue, or too stubborn to stop a pissing contest. > Maybe its time again, maybe not. What do you think? > > chuck > > Note New New Address!!: > > Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice) > Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax) > 5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail] > Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 11 15:04:27 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA03297; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA21015; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id OAA15229 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id OAA15220 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.90]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id OAA06961 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lamar.ColoState.EDU (lamar.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.75]) by eagle.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA467982 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:38:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: from ceres.agsci.colostate.edu (ceres.AgSci.ColoState.EDU [129.82.119.99]) by lamar.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id MAA114076 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:38:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.82.194.171] by ceres.agsci.colostate.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA20929; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:14:04 -0600 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971011183823.006b6618@ceres.agsci.colostate.edu> X-Sender: esparlin@ceres.agsci.colostate.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:38:23 -0600 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: Ed Sparling Subject: Re: More Debate Orgo Certification Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 127 Enough for now. Ed Sparling Professor Dept of Ag and Resource Econ B-311 Clark Blg Colorado State University Ft Collins, CO 80523 Phone 970-491-6946 Fax 970-491-2067 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 11 15:56:09 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA05041; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA02770; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:51:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id PAA21386 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id PAA21339 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.unixg.ubc.ca (mail.unixg.ubc.ca [137.82.27.14]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id PAA08451 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:37:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fert [207.23.94.180] by mail.unixg.ubc.ca with smtp (Exim 1.71 #1) id 0xK7M8-0006gY-00; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:37:44 -0700 X-Sender: fert@pop.unixg.ubc.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: fert@unixg.ubc.ca (art bomke) Subject: Re: more debate Orgo Certification X-Mailer: Message-Id: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:37:44 -0700 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 128 Enough for now. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 11 17:45:06 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA10598; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA01443; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:40:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA23844 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:18:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA23835 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:18:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gold.wvnet.edu (gold.wvnet.edu [129.71.2.25]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA11106 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wisent (129.71.87.12) by gold.wvnet.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.8344B700@gold.wvnet.edu>; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:17:12 -0400 From: MEBUCKNER@wnpb.wvnet.edu (Marian Buckner) To: benbrook@hillnet.com (Charles Benbrook) Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:16:10 -0400 Subject: Re: A Suggestion Message-ID: References: <2.2.32.19971010210510.00742e70@mail.nidlink.com> Organization: WISe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-ID: X-Gateway: NASTA Gate 2.0 beta 2 for FirstClass(R) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 129 Enough for now. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 11 21:13:12 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA13212; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA19221; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id UAA27833 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:43:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id UAA27821 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gold.wvnet.edu (gold.wvnet.edu [129.71.2.25]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id UAA15790 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wisent (129.71.87.12) by gold.wvnet.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.652B4EB0@gold.wvnet.edu>; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:43:57 -0400 From: MEBUCKNER@wnpb.wvnet.edu (Marian Buckner) To: benbrook@hillnet.com (Charles Benbrook) Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:43:40 -0400 Subject: Re More Debate Orgo Certification Message-ID: References: <2.2.32.19971010210510.00742e70@mail.nidlink.com> Organization: WISe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-ID: X-Gateway: NASTA Gate 2.0 beta 2 for FirstClass(R) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 130 Enough for now. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 12 18:42:47 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA25118; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:42:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA17785; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id SAA21559 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id SAA21417 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:04:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from moose.uvm.edu (moose.uvm.edu [132.198.101.60]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id SAA17970 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from elk.uvm.edu (elk.uvm.edu [132.198.101.63]) by moose.uvm.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA86512 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:04:44 -0400 Received: from localhost (gharris@localhost) by elk.uvm.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA82166 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:04:43 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: elk.uvm.edu: gharris owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:04:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gwyneth E. Harris" X-Sender: gharris@elk.uvm.edu To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Subject: More Debate Orgo Certification In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19971011183823.006b6618@ceres.agsci.colostate.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 131 Enough for now! It's very difficult to wade through ALL of the postings on organic certification. It makes me less likely to read my mail in general - not that I don't have an interest, but I do have some time constraints to my life.... To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 12 18:51:33 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA25477; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA19617; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:46:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id SAA01980 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:24:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id SAA01973 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shirley.theramp.net (shirley.theramp.net [205.212.88.4]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id SAA18294 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kato.TheRamp.net (pr-ip-47.theramp.net [206.68.165.47]) by shirley.theramp.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA12604 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:49:13 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:49:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971012172742.0ddf5018@mail.TheRamp.net> X-Sender: erinlear@mail.TheRamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: GARY & MARDEL ROBINSON Subject: Re More Debate Orgo Certification Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 132 Enough for now. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 12 20:16:20 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA28680; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA09056; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id TAA15961 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id TAA15951 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tweety.bhp.com.au (tweety.bhp.com.au [192.83.224.130]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id TAA20091 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au (gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au [134.18.115.254]) by tweety.bhp.com.au (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA20450 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:47:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from bhpmel-imc01.corpmel.bhp.com.au (bhpmel-imc01.corpmel.bhp.com.au [203.7.108.43]) by gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA04427 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:46:49 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199710122346.JAA04427@gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au> Received: by bhpmel-imc01.corpmel.bhp.com.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1664.3) id <44AZBB82>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:46:51 +1000 From: "Alenson, Chris CJ" To: "'sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: A Suggestion Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:38:24 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1664.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 133 Enough for now. Many worthy issues have arisen from this discussion but we are starting to go around in circles now. Chris Alenson Organic Advisory Service Organic Retailers & Growers Association of Australia ---------- From: Charles Benbrook[SMTP:benbrook@hillnet.com] Sent: Saturday, 11 October 1997 7:05:am To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: A Suggestion Interest among a few members of the list on issues arising from organic certification and the forthcoming regulations has blossomed to a point where it may be time for them to take the discussion to another list, more focused and deidcated to that topic. Sal's excellent web page is an obvious candidate if he can manage a "chat room" on the topic. Maybe one of the certifying organizations would volunteer to take on this task; when the NOP rule is published, we will need a dedicated forum to discuss, debate and sharpen responses. Moving this debate now while the juices are still flowing would be a good way to jump-start a new list. I would surely enjoy participating in the dialogue. In addition to substantive imblanace of the last 10 days or so, the tone and content of messages has not improved fast enough for my taste. So lets do a poll. I would love to see at least HALF of the 700-800? people who receive Sanet to weigh in with, if nothing else, a short message, with subject line: "Re More Debate Orgo Certification". In your message, say whatever you wish, but at a minimum, please post -- "Let the debate go on!" or "Enough for now." Hopefully this will help clarify whether the average SANET reader is interested in more discussion on organic certification and the topics that have been so thoroughly beaten to death of late. Over the last 5 years or so there have been maybe 3 or 4 times when SANET readers have had to rescue the list from a few people deeply interested in a narrow issue, or too stubborn to stop a pissing contest. Maybe its time again, maybe not. What do you think? chuck Note New New Address!!: Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice) Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax) 5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail] Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 04:42:09 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id EAA23496; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id EAA26366; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:37:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id EAA20487 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id EAA20432 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from main.nrg.com.au (root@main.nrg.com.au [203.16.176.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id EAA03177 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fresherb.nrg.com.au (nrgline14.nrg.com.au [203.16.176.214]) by main.nrg.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA22051 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:12:44 +1000 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971013080943.0068a55c@MAIN.NRG.COM.AU> X-Sender: fresherb@MAIN.NRG.COM.AU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:09:43 +1000 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: David Hine Subject: "Re More Debate Orgo Certification". Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 134 Enough for now. The certification serves the consumer, especially the urban one.The producer in a democratic society must accept that and find useful strategies to address any issues that arise. David Hine Sustainable Farm Design Works Atkins Rd, Cawongla via Kyogle, NSW, Australia 2474 ph/fax: 61 2 6633 7162. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 10:46:47 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA06879; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA05745; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:41:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA18244 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA18166 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.usinternet.com (mail.usinternet.com [205.219.138.31]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA15650 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:18:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PC_riverbend.mail.usinternet.com ([208.132.190.142]) by mail.usinternet.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-42439U10000L10000S0) with SMTP id AAA449; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:17:39 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19971010210510.00742e70@mail.nidlink.com> References: Conversation <2.2.32.19971010210510.00742e70@mail.nidlink.com> with last message <2.2.32.19971010210510.00742e70@mail.nidlink.com> To: Charles Benbrook , sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 From: reynolds Subject: "Re More Debate Orgo Certification". Date: Mon, 13 Oct 97 07:47:10 PDT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by luna.oit.unc.edu id KAA06879 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 135 It is time to give it a rest. The discusssion is too un-informed to do much good. Greg Reynolds Riverbend Farm 5405 Calder Ave SE Delano, Mn 55328 612 972 3295 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 11:11:46 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA07851; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA11966; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA02313 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA02304 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chowan.ces.state.nc.us (chowan.ces.state.nc.us [207.4.150.68]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA16542; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (mrayburn@localhost) by chowan.ces.state.nc.us (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA20378; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:40:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Marjorie Rayburn Message-Id: <9710131040.ZM20376@chowan.ces.state.nc.us> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 06sep94) To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: More Debate Orgo Certification Cc: mrayburn@chowan.ces.state.nc.us Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 136 Enough for now! (at least on this mg) -- Marjorie Rayburn (Ms. IPM) E-Mail : mrayburn@chowan Internet: mrayburn@chowan.ces.ncsu.edu Phone : (919) 482-8431 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 11:17:13 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA08078; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA13218; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA08999 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA08995 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enaila.nidlink.com (root@enaila.nidlink.com [205.219.220.23]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA17000 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:52:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hillnet1.nidlink.com (pm5-22.nidlink.com [206.96.73.29]) by enaila.nidlink.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA03772 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971013114902.00716734@mail.nidlink.com> X-Sender: benbrook@mail.nidlink.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:49:02 -0400 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: ATarasow@aol.com (by way of Charles Benbrook ) Subject: Re: A Suggestion Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 137 Enough for now. Amanda Holmes Tarasow (If I wasn't supposed to send this to you, sorry please forward and I would be very grateful!) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 11:18:36 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA08752; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:18:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA13511; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:13:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id KAA09021 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:53:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id KAA09014 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enaila.nidlink.com (root@enaila.nidlink.com [205.219.220.23]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id KAA17025 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hillnet1.nidlink.com (pm5-22.nidlink.com [206.96.73.29]) by enaila.nidlink.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA03799 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971013114925.00e0ab94@mail.nidlink.com> X-Sender: benbrook@mail.nidlink.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:49:25 -0400 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: klmerc@puccini.crl.umn.edu (Kristin L. Mercer (Agron.)) (by way of Charles Benbrook ) Subject: re more debate orgo certification Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 138 basta! (that means enough for now in spanish) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 16:56:45 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA17434; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA04695; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id QAA27303 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id QAA27238 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:13:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iac8.navix.net (iac8.navix.net [207.91.5.8]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id QAA01275 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iac6.navix.net (iac6.navix.net [207.91.5.4]) by iac8.navix.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA17074 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:13:42 -0500 Received: from 204.214.131.20 (xyp161p19.ltec.net [204.214.131.21]) by iac6.navix.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA51722 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:13:39 -0500 Message-ID: <34423B43.4667@navix.net> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:16:19 +0000 From: Duane Hovorka Reply-To: dh43048@navix.net Organization: Elmwood Forest Creative Workshop X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: CRP Bidding Tips Available Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 139 Now Available: "Bid to Win: Tips for Maximizing Your CRP Bid." This free brochure was designed to help farmers interested in winning a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contract in the USDA signup which runs October 14 through November 14. It includes an explanation of the factors a farmer can control, tips on scoring points in the bidding, and a simplified CRP scoring worksheet. The brochure was developed by the Center for Rural Affairs, headquartered in Walthill, Nebraska. Single copies are available free of charge by calling the Conservation Hotline, (402)-994-2021, or sending an e-mail to dh43048@navix.net. Please include your name and street address. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From london@sunsite.unc.edu Mon Oct 13 17:15:46 1997 Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17664; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA19798; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu Reply-To: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu cc: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu, permaculture@envirolink.org, csa-l@prairienet.org, organic-gardening@listserv.oit.unc.edu, simple-living@listserv.oit.unc.edu Subject: re more debate orgo certification [alternate list for certification debate] In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19971013114925.00e0ab94@mail.nidlink.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 140 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternate forum for continuing the ongoing debate on certification: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Those interested in small scale organic market gardening and USDA organic certification & alternate certification plans might be interested in subscribing to any of the five new mailing lists I have set up. They are: organic-gardening organic-certification (in the works, will be ready soon) permaculture simple-living homestead also, there exists csa-l@prairienet.org for those interested in CSAs Use this generic information to subscribe; substitute the appropriate list name where needed. - ================================================================== Permaculture Mailing List at U.N.C.: permaculture@listserv.unc.edu ================================================================== Here are brief subscription instructions plus a few urls for details about the U.N.C. listserver (uses the ListProc software). Use this page to find out name & email ID you are subscribed with, in case you don't remember and want to unsubscribe from the list. - To subscribe to a list, either use the WILP page: ------------------------------------------------- http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/ or more specifically: http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/user_sub_unsub.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- At this URL you'll find the complete usage docs for UNC's Listserver: http://help.unc.edu/cgi-bin/getdocs?docnumber=ieg08 or just start at http://help/unc.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- Or manually subscribe by email: ------------------------------- Address your request to subscribe to permaculture to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu. i.e., send email to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu Leave the Subject: line blank. In the body of the message, type, if you're subscribing: subscribe permaculture yourname or, if you're unsubscribing type: unsubscribe permaculture yourname (you can also use the words unsub or signoff) For example: subscribe permaculture Bob Smith or: unsubscribe permaculture Bob Smith To post to all the subscribers of the list: ------------------------------------------- Send your article by email to: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu IMPORTANT: ========== Write down and save the email ID and name you subscribed with. If you ever need to unsubscribe this info will be necessary. This list is configured to only allow subscribers to post articles. Contact: Lawrence F. London, Jr., london@sunsite.unc.edu, list owner with any questions, requests or suggestions. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden - Venaura Farm mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden/permaculture.html -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-csa-l@prairienet.org Mon Oct 13 17:18:18 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17700 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coneflower.prairienet.org (coneflower.prairienet.org [192.17.3.5]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA10557 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coneflower.prairienet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA20358; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:11:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by coneflower.prairienet.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA20225 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:10:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17664; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA19798; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." Sender: owner-csa-l@prairienet.org Precedence: bulk From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu, permaculture@envirolink.org, csa-l@prairienet.org, organic-gardening@listserv.oit.unc.edu, simple-living@listserv.oit.unc.edu Subject: re more debate orgo certification [alternate list for certification debate] In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19971013114925.00e0ab94@mail.nidlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 141 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternate forum for continuing the ongoing debate on certification: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Those interested in small scale organic market gardening and USDA organic certification & alternate certification plans might be interested in subscribing to any of the five new mailing lists I have set up. They are: organic-gardening organic-certification (in the works, will be ready soon) permaculture simple-living homestead also, there exists csa-l@prairienet.org for those interested in CSAs Use this generic information to subscribe; substitute the appropriate list name where needed. - ================================================================== Permaculture Mailing List at U.N.C.: permaculture@listserv.unc.edu ================================================================== Here are brief subscription instructions plus a few urls for details about the U.N.C. listserver (uses the ListProc software). Use this page to find out name & email ID you are subscribed with, in case you don't remember and want to unsubscribe from the list. - To subscribe to a list, either use the WILP page: ------------------------------------------------- http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/ or more specifically: http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/user_sub_unsub.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- At this URL you'll find the complete usage docs for UNC's Listserver: http://help.unc.edu/cgi-bin/getdocs?docnumber=ieg08 or just start at http://help/unc.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- Or manually subscribe by email: ------------------------------- Address your request to subscribe to permaculture to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu. i.e., send email to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu Leave the Subject: line blank. In the body of the message, type, if you're subscribing: subscribe permaculture yourname or, if you're unsubscribing type: unsubscribe permaculture yourname (you can also use the words unsub or signoff) For example: subscribe permaculture Bob Smith or: unsubscribe permaculture Bob Smith To post to all the subscribers of the list: ------------------------------------------- Send your article by email to: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu IMPORTANT: ========== Write down and save the email ID and name you subscribed with. If you ever need to unsubscribe this info will be necessary. This list is configured to only allow subscribers to post articles. Contact: Lawrence F. London, Jr., london@sunsite.unc.edu, list owner with any questions, requests or suggestions. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden - Venaura Farm mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden/permaculture.html -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-organic-gardening@listserv.oit.unc.edu Mon Oct 13 17:19:15 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17721 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from listserv.oit.unc.edu (listserv.oit.unc.edu [152.2.25.17]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA10852 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:14:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SOCKFAULT1@localhost (port 52737 [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.oit.unc.edu with SMTP id <156514-26830>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:14:05 -0400 Received: from NO-IDENT-SERVICE@luna.oit.unc.edu (port 39751 [152.2.22.4]) by listserv.oit.unc.edu with ESMTP id <156510-26813>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:11:05 -0400 Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17664; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA19798; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." Sender: owner-organic-gardening@listserv.oit.unc.edu From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu, permaculture@envirolink.org, csa-l@prairienet.org, organic-gardening@listserv.oit.unc.edu, simple-living@listserv.oit.unc.edu Subject: re more debate orgo certification [alternate list for certification debate] In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19971013114925.00e0ab94@mail.nidlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 142 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternate forum for continuing the ongoing debate on certification: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Those interested in small scale organic market gardening and USDA organic certification & alternate certification plans might be interested in subscribing to any of the five new mailing lists I have set up. They are: organic-gardening organic-certification (in the works, will be ready soon) permaculture simple-living homestead also, there exists csa-l@prairienet.org for those interested in CSAs Use this generic information to subscribe; substitute the appropriate list name where needed. - ================================================================== Permaculture Mailing List at U.N.C.: permaculture@listserv.unc.edu ================================================================== Here are brief subscription instructions plus a few urls for details about the U.N.C. listserver (uses the ListProc software). Use this page to find out name & email ID you are subscribed with, in case you don't remember and want to unsubscribe from the list. - To subscribe to a list, either use the WILP page: ------------------------------------------------- http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/ or more specifically: http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/user_sub_unsub.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- At this URL you'll find the complete usage docs for UNC's Listserver: http://help.unc.edu/cgi-bin/getdocs?docnumber=ieg08 or just start at http://help/unc.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- Or manually subscribe by email: ------------------------------- Address your request to subscribe to permaculture to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu. i.e., send email to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu Leave the Subject: line blank. In the body of the message, type, if you're subscribing: subscribe permaculture yourname or, if you're unsubscribing type: unsubscribe permaculture yourname (you can also use the words unsub or signoff) For example: subscribe permaculture Bob Smith or: unsubscribe permaculture Bob Smith To post to all the subscribers of the list: ------------------------------------------- Send your article by email to: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu IMPORTANT: ========== Write down and save the email ID and name you subscribed with. If you ever need to unsubscribe this info will be necessary. This list is configured to only allow subscribers to post articles. Contact: Lawrence F. London, Jr., london@sunsite.unc.edu, list owner with any questions, requests or suggestions. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden - Venaura Farm mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden/permaculture.html -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-simple-living@listserv.oit.unc.edu Mon Oct 13 17:19:52 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17739 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:19:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from listserv.oit.unc.edu (listserv.oit.unc.edu [152.2.25.17]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA11036 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SOCKFAULT1@localhost (port 52739 [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.oit.unc.edu with SMTP id <156532-26832>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:14:20 -0400 Received: from NO-IDENT-SERVICE@luna.oit.unc.edu (port 39751 [152.2.22.4]) by listserv.oit.unc.edu with ESMTP id <156510-26813>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:11:05 -0400 Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17664; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA19798; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." Sender: owner-simple-living@listserv.oit.unc.edu From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu, permaculture@envirolink.org, csa-l@prairienet.org, organic-gardening@listserv.oit.unc.edu, simple-living@listserv.oit.unc.edu Subject: re more debate orgo certification [alternate list for certification debate] In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19971013114925.00e0ab94@mail.nidlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 143 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternate forum for continuing the ongoing debate on certification: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Those interested in small scale organic market gardening and USDA organic certification & alternate certification plans might be interested in subscribing to any of the five new mailing lists I have set up. They are: organic-gardening organic-certification (in the works, will be ready soon) permaculture simple-living homestead also, there exists csa-l@prairienet.org for those interested in CSAs Use this generic information to subscribe; substitute the appropriate list name where needed. - ================================================================== Permaculture Mailing List at U.N.C.: permaculture@listserv.unc.edu ================================================================== Here are brief subscription instructions plus a few urls for details about the U.N.C. listserver (uses the ListProc software). Use this page to find out name & email ID you are subscribed with, in case you don't remember and want to unsubscribe from the list. - To subscribe to a list, either use the WILP page: ------------------------------------------------- http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/ or more specifically: http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/user_sub_unsub.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- At this URL you'll find the complete usage docs for UNC's Listserver: http://help.unc.edu/cgi-bin/getdocs?docnumber=ieg08 or just start at http://help/unc.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- Or manually subscribe by email: ------------------------------- Address your request to subscribe to permaculture to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu. i.e., send email to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu Leave the Subject: line blank. In the body of the message, type, if you're subscribing: subscribe permaculture yourname or, if you're unsubscribing type: unsubscribe permaculture yourname (you can also use the words unsub or signoff) For example: subscribe permaculture Bob Smith or: unsubscribe permaculture Bob Smith To post to all the subscribers of the list: ------------------------------------------- Send your article by email to: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu IMPORTANT: ========== Write down and save the email ID and name you subscribed with. If you ever need to unsubscribe this info will be necessary. This list is configured to only allow subscribers to post articles. Contact: Lawrence F. London, Jr., london@sunsite.unc.edu, list owner with any questions, requests or suggestions. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden - Venaura Farm mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden/permaculture.html -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu Mon Oct 13 17:19:59 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17744 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:19:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from listserv.oit.unc.edu (listserv.oit.unc.edu [152.2.25.17]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA11074 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:15:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SOCKFAULT1@localhost (port 52750 [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.oit.unc.edu with SMTP id <156536-26831>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:14:21 -0400 Received: from NO-IDENT-SERVICE@luna.oit.unc.edu (port 39751 [152.2.22.4]) by listserv.oit.unc.edu with ESMTP id <156510-26813>; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:11:05 -0400 Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17664; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA19798; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." Sender: owner-permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu, permaculture@envirolink.org, csa-l@prairienet.org, organic-gardening@listserv.oit.unc.edu, simple-living@listserv.oit.unc.edu Subject: re more debate orgo certification [alternate list for certification debate] In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19971013114925.00e0ab94@mail.nidlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 144 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternate forum for continuing the ongoing debate on certification: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Those interested in small scale organic market gardening and USDA organic certification & alternate certification plans might be interested in subscribing to any of the five new mailing lists I have set up. They are: organic-gardening organic-certification (in the works, will be ready soon) permaculture simple-living homestead also, there exists csa-l@prairienet.org for those interested in CSAs Use this generic information to subscribe; substitute the appropriate list name where needed. - ================================================================== Permaculture Mailing List at U.N.C.: permaculture@listserv.unc.edu ================================================================== Here are brief subscription instructions plus a few urls for details about the U.N.C. listserver (uses the ListProc software). Use this page to find out name & email ID you are subscribed with, in case you don't remember and want to unsubscribe from the list. - To subscribe to a list, either use the WILP page: ------------------------------------------------- http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/ or more specifically: http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/user_sub_unsub.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- At this URL you'll find the complete usage docs for UNC's Listserver: http://help.unc.edu/cgi-bin/getdocs?docnumber=ieg08 or just start at http://help/unc.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- Or manually subscribe by email: ------------------------------- Address your request to subscribe to permaculture to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu. i.e., send email to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu Leave the Subject: line blank. In the body of the message, type, if you're subscribing: subscribe permaculture yourname or, if you're unsubscribing type: unsubscribe permaculture yourname (you can also use the words unsub or signoff) For example: subscribe permaculture Bob Smith or: unsubscribe permaculture Bob Smith To post to all the subscribers of the list: ------------------------------------------- Send your article by email to: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu IMPORTANT: ========== Write down and save the email ID and name you subscribed with. If you ever need to unsubscribe this info will be necessary. This list is configured to only allow subscribers to post articles. Contact: Lawrence F. London, Jr., london@sunsite.unc.edu, list owner with any questions, requests or suggestions. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden - Venaura Farm mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden/permaculture.html -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-permaculture@envirolink.org Mon Oct 13 17:24:28 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17819 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:24:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from envirolink.org (manatee.envirolink.org [207.254.90.7]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA12164 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host by envirolink.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA24163; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:12:09 -0400 Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu by envirolink.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23150; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:05:39 -0400 Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA17664; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA19798; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." Sender: owner-permaculture@envirolink.org Precedence: bulk From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu, permaculture@envirolink.org, csa-l@prairienet.org, organic-gardening@listserv.oit.unc.edu, simple-living@listserv.oit.unc.edu Subject: re more debate orgo certification [alternate list for certification debate] In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19971013114925.00e0ab94@mail.nidlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 145 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternate forum for continuing the ongoing debate on certification: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Those interested in small scale organic market gardening and USDA organic certification & alternate certification plans might be interested in subscribing to any of the five new mailing lists I have set up. They are: organic-gardening organic-certification (in the works, will be ready soon) permaculture simple-living homestead also, there exists csa-l@prairienet.org for those interested in CSAs Use this generic information to subscribe; substitute the appropriate list name where needed. - ================================================================== Permaculture Mailing List at U.N.C.: permaculture@listserv.unc.edu ================================================================== Here are brief subscription instructions plus a few urls for details about the U.N.C. listserver (uses the ListProc software). Use this page to find out name & email ID you are subscribed with, in case you don't remember and want to unsubscribe from the list. - To subscribe to a list, either use the WILP page: ------------------------------------------------- http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/ or more specifically: http://www.unc.edu/courses/ssp/wilp/user_sub_unsub.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- At this URL you'll find the complete usage docs for UNC's Listserver: http://help.unc.edu/cgi-bin/getdocs?docnumber=ieg08 or just start at http://help/unc.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- Or manually subscribe by email: ------------------------------- Address your request to subscribe to permaculture to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu. i.e., send email to: listproc@listserv.oit.unc.edu Leave the Subject: line blank. In the body of the message, type, if you're subscribing: subscribe permaculture yourname or, if you're unsubscribing type: unsubscribe permaculture yourname (you can also use the words unsub or signoff) For example: subscribe permaculture Bob Smith or: unsubscribe permaculture Bob Smith To post to all the subscribers of the list: ------------------------------------------- Send your article by email to: permaculture@listserv.oit.unc.edu IMPORTANT: ========== Write down and save the email ID and name you subscribed with. If you ever need to unsubscribe this info will be necessary. This list is configured to only allow subscribers to post articles. Contact: Lawrence F. London, Jr., london@sunsite.unc.edu, list owner with any questions, requests or suggestions. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden - Venaura Farm mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden/permaculture.html -------------------------------------------------------------- From Erorganic@aol.com Mon Oct 13 17:37:07 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA18078 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:37:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: from emout34.mail.aol.com (emout34.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.17]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA15494 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:32:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout34.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA12418; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971013172157_1825127520@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: london@sunsite.unc.edu, richmo@indy.net cc: sals@rain.org, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 146 Hello Larry and all, You will note my many communications concerning the multiple number of issues that Sal, Rich, Douglas and others have raised. My record on organic small to moderate size development stands very clear. What strikes me is the lacking of creative and practical solutions to truth in organic labeling problems and consumer trustworthiness of the organic label that is without question at the core of creating permanent markets for small to moderate size organic farmers. I challenge all four of you and any others to use OFPA and RFA (Regulatory Flexibility Act) as the basis of further discussion and demonstrate where the potential regulatory problems are for organic farmers, handlers, certifiers and consumers. Attacks and diatribes are getting boring and tools of those hopelessly mired in cynicism and misinformation in this case. We are not writing an Act of Congress, we are operating within the parameters of existing Congressional Acts. Long ago at the first or second NOSB meeting I and Ozark Small Farm Viability Project concluded that our opinion would only be one among many. We concluded that an Act is an Act is an Act of Congress. Know the laws, use the US laws to insure that the people that matter (listed above) get what they need to create consistent and worthwhile markets. We were fortunate in that OFPA was an excellent law for all concerned. But that does not stop the special interest from trying to reshape it through the Rule writing process to fulfill their vested interest needs. All of us are in one way or another already impacted by private or State organic certifiers. Sal still has not answered me as to who certifies him though I assume it is CCOF? Does Douglas need to be certified organic as a handler of organic products from Mexico? (Anyone who receives or otherwise acquires agricultural products; and processes, packages or stores such products must be certified as an organic handling operation. However, Douglas may be a good example of what is called a "commission agent" under PACA, the Perishable Agricultural Commodity Act, in the US, and in fact does not have to be certified as an organic handling operation under OFPA because a "commission agent" by definition does not receive or acquire perishable product.) and Lawrence, are you being certified by a certifier? Rich is President of Indiana OCIA. The Indianapolis Star noted that Rich's 1997 field(s) was drifted on by prohibited chemical spray. Under OFPA it will be mandatory to test successive crop or crops for remaining residue of the prohibited substance. If found to be present because of pesticide drift, the crop from certified land cannot be sold as "organic". Under OFPA, the farm will not be decertified organic, but allowed to continue with a testing program until the successive crops are free of prohibited substances. No question this is an added costs to the farmer and should be repaid. With the National Organic Program in place, a certified farm will have a strong position to sue for damages for loss of the premium income that they have generated through being certified by an accredited USDA certification agent. Under the USDA National Organic Program, a 30 feet or larger buffer strip will be mandatory where certified organic land contacts conventionally, chemically treated land. As it stands now, there is no protection for organic farmers for the additional investment they have made in certification and three years without the application of synthetic fertilizers and prohibited substances. Organic is going legit. The wave is only beginning to break. The organic community has always encouraged all farmers to join in the new environmentally sound production paradigm. The organic community's long standing mission is to use market incentive to protect our environment and our health. The barriers to organic farming are going to role back with implementation of the NOP. Now it is virtually impossible to get crop insurance for the organic crops and certainly not for the potential organic premium loss under the Federal crop insurance program. Because of not being able to get organic crop insurance, organic farmers can not get bank loans (or very few of them). The times they are a changing, and it is coming faster than anyone imagines--why, because the consumers want "organic" certified products and OFPA was passed by Congress. Still, constant vigilance is necessary, to make the NOP benefit small farmers and businesses. Best Regards, Eric Kindberg Subj: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce Date: 97-09-20 12:39:42 EDT From: london@sunsite.unc.edu (Lawrence F. London, Jr.) To: richmo@indy.net (Rich Molini) CC: sals@rain.org (sal), Erorganic@aol.com, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu (sanet-mg) Sorry to post this to the list. Could someone give me subscription info for the small farm mailing list? Regarding organic certification: If the USDA organic certification program thinks I will abide by their regulations and pay the local non-smallfarm/smallorganicgrower-supporting greedy, control-freak, profiteering, grant mongering certification non-profits corporations they are out of their collective minds. They've done nothing to help us small growers; and it appears to me that the USDA certifcation program is there only to help large organic operations. Support the fertile crescent concept, your local growers, local economies and the communities in your region. Sal, as usual and Rich are on the money with their comments. I thought you'd be more supportive of small organic local growers, Eric (Erorganic). As you well know the local NP bozos are still up to their tricks. Anything happening on the local permaculture, smallfarm, market gardening front is done by THE GROWERS THEMSELVES, the NC Cooperative Extension Service and the NCDA marketing division and soil/plant/nematode testing labs. North Carolina's first Sustainable Small Farming Curriculum and Library has been started by local growers (and individuals in support of local growers), the NC CES and Central Carolina Community College. I think I'll label my produce Naturally Grown (w/o synthetic pesticides and fertilizers). Lawrence -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden Venaura Farm - Dragonfly Market Gardens mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden/permaculture.html -------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 17:52:17 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA18231; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA19124; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:47:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA14869 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA14780 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:29:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout34.mail.aol.com (emout34.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.17]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA04296 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:29:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout34.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA12418; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971013172157_1825127520@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: london@sunsite.unc.edu, richmo@indy.net cc: sals@rain.org, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 147 Hello Larry and all, You will note my many communications concerning the multiple number of issues that Sal, Rich, Douglas and others have raised. My record on organic small to moderate size development stands very clear. What strikes me is the lacking of creative and practical solutions to truth in organic labeling problems and consumer trustworthiness of the organic label that is without question at the core of creating permanent markets for small to moderate size organic farmers. I challenge all four of you and any others to use OFPA and RFA (Regulatory Flexibility Act) as the basis of further discussion and demonstrate where the potential regulatory problems are for organic farmers, handlers, certifiers and consumers. Attacks and diatribes are getting boring and tools of those hopelessly mired in cynicism and misinformation in this case. We are not writing an Act of Congress, we are operating within the parameters of existing Congressional Acts. Long ago at the first or second NOSB meeting I and Ozark Small Farm Viability Project concluded that our opinion would only be one among many. We concluded that an Act is an Act is an Act of Congress. Know the laws, use the US laws to insure that the people that matter (listed above) get what they need to create consistent and worthwhile markets. We were fortunate in that OFPA was an excellent law for all concerned. But that does not stop the special interest from trying to reshape it through the Rule writing process to fulfill their vested interest needs. All of us are in one way or another already impacted by private or State organic certifiers. Sal still has not answered me as to who certifies him though I assume it is CCOF? Does Douglas need to be certified organic as a handler of organic products from Mexico? (Anyone who receives or otherwise acquires agricultural products; and processes, packages or stores such products must be certified as an organic handling operation. However, Douglas may be a good example of what is called a "commission agent" under PACA, the Perishable Agricultural Commodity Act, in the US, and in fact does not have to be certified as an organic handling operation under OFPA because a "commission agent" by definition does not receive or acquire perishable product.) and Lawrence, are you being certified by a certifier? Rich is President of Indiana OCIA. The Indianapolis Star noted that Rich's 1997 field(s) was drifted on by prohibited chemical spray. Under OFPA it will be mandatory to test successive crop or crops for remaining residue of the prohibited substance. If found to be present because of pesticide drift, the crop from certified land cannot be sold as "organic". Under OFPA, the farm will not be decertified organic, but allowed to continue with a testing program until the successive crops are free of prohibited substances. No question this is an added costs to the farmer and should be repaid. With the National Organic Program in place, a certified farm will have a strong position to sue for damages for loss of the premium income that they have generated through being certified by an accredited USDA certification agent. Under the USDA National Organic Program, a 30 feet or larger buffer strip will be mandatory where certified organic land contacts conventionally, chemically treated land. As it stands now, there is no protection for organic farmers for the additional investment they have made in certification and three years without the application of synthetic fertilizers and prohibited substances. Organic is going legit. The wave is only beginning to break. The organic community has always encouraged all farmers to join in the new environmentally sound production paradigm. The organic community's long standing mission is to use market incentive to protect our environment and our health. The barriers to organic farming are going to role back with implementation of the NOP. Now it is virtually impossible to get crop insurance for the organic crops and certainly not for the potential organic premium loss under the Federal crop insurance program. Because of not being able to get organic crop insurance, organic farmers can not get bank loans (or very few of them). The times they are a changing, and it is coming faster than anyone imagines--why, because the consumers want "organic" certified products and OFPA was passed by Congress. Still, constant vigilance is necessary, to make the NOP benefit small farmers and businesses. Best Regards, Eric Kindberg Subj: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce Date: 97-09-20 12:39:42 EDT From: london@sunsite.unc.edu (Lawrence F. London, Jr.) To: richmo@indy.net (Rich Molini) CC: sals@rain.org (sal), Erorganic@aol.com, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu (sanet-mg) Sorry to post this to the list. Could someone give me subscription info for the small farm mailing list? Regarding organic certification: If the USDA organic certification program thinks I will abide by their regulations and pay the local non-smallfarm/smallorganicgrower-supporting greedy, control-freak, profiteering, grant mongering certification non-profits corporations they are out of their collective minds. They've done nothing to help us small growers; and it appears to me that the USDA certifcation program is there only to help large organic operations. Support the fertile crescent concept, your local growers, local economies and the communities in your region. Sal, as usual and Rich are on the money with their comments. I thought you'd be more supportive of small organic local growers, Eric (Erorganic). As you well know the local NP bozos are still up to their tricks. Anything happening on the local permaculture, smallfarm, market gardening front is done by THE GROWERS THEMSELVES, the NC Cooperative Extension Service and the NCDA marketing division and soil/plant/nematode testing labs. North Carolina's first Sustainable Small Farming Curriculum and Library has been started by local growers (and individuals in support of local growers), the NC CES and Central Carolina Community College. I think I'll label my produce Naturally Grown (w/o synthetic pesticides and fertilizers). Lawrence -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden Venaura Farm - Dragonfly Market Gardens mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden/permaculture.html -------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 17:52:34 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA18236; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA19209; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:47:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA10564 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:24:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA10464 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout03.mail.aol.com (emout03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.94]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA04168 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:24:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA16126; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971013172112_-361242273@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: dhinds@ucol.mx, sals@rain.org, Sprinkraft@aol.com, cvof@iquest.net, wfof@ptel.net cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, cooperative-bus@relay.doit.wisc.edu Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 148 Hello Douglas, The following statement is incorrect within the US. OCIA is a nonprofit and charges many farmers and handlers above what is charged by some for-profit incorporated certification groups. I wouldn't say OCIA is the highest priced certifier, but it is right up there. Eric >From Douglas Hinds: However, the issue here is protect oneself and throw at the parasites the least possible waste of resources. To that end, since there are cooperative certifying bodies (made up and operated by their members) like OCIA which charge much less than certifying agencies that are in fact profit oriented, I recommend going that route and to hell with the rest of it, if you've got better things to do. And some comments: OFPA was passed to protect the consumer against bogus certifiers, farmers and handlers. To carry this out, it was imperative to define the system of farming, handling and certification that would be acceptable. I appreciate the honesty that some farmers and handlers feel in expressing their dissatisfaction with submitting to a regulatory framework. The domestic and worldwide picture has changed from the day of calling what I produce or you produce "organic". Customers want assurance of the nature of "organic". Consumers want to know they are getting what they are paying for. In fact, OFPA was not passed by organic farmers, handlers or certifiers. Consumers asked their Congressional Reps to pass the Act. The US Constitution assures everyone that they can offer their opinion, experiences and documentation in proposing and passage of an Act. And then in the end, a judgement is made. Congress had the option of not passing OFPA. With concerned interest by the organic community, with the support of consumer, environmental, and public interest groups, hordes of consumers and the opposition for a time of every conventional agricultural group in the US, OFPA passed. In the end, Farm Bureau and many major conventional marketing coops and other production advocacy groups backed OFPA as it is written now. That was seven years ago. There is no turning back now. Our common objective should be to make sure OFPA works for all the interested groups. Nothing exactly like OFPA has ever been implemented by agencies of government. OFPA is breaking new ground. We hope you join us in that effort to make OFPA exemplary and successful. And From Douglas Hinds: In short: Commerce is by nature an event that is consumated between consenting parties and if there's a willful act of misrepresentation occurring, I can see a need for legal action to be taken and therefore a need for a legal defination, structure and procedure surrounding it; BUT what's happening is parasitic in nature and has nothing to due with competence or loyal adherence to a natural, evolutionary principal. There were abuses before certifcation but obligating third party certification does lend to abuse itself, and state laws that don't require this (i.e. California's, one of the first) provide a more equitable solution. For some farmers and handlers it may make their business more easy and lucrative if they do not have to submit to regulatory requirements. I am well familiar with the legal language of OFPA and its implications. After much thought, I can offer no advise on how any farmer, certifier or handler can get around its regulatory influence. That was the purpose in the Act. Personally, I think I can feel at ease with OFPA because I believe the buying public owns the word "organic", the right to know they are getting what they are paying for. In fact, to be consistent I think the buying public owns all advertisements and identities. When someone does not meet the public's perception for a word used in commerce, the public has a right through their agencies to regulate the identity or advertisement. Such is the Constitution of the US, the Commerce Clause. All the levels of US government have the power in various situations, under the Constitution or other laws, to control trade in the US. As I pointed out before, if Constitutional government does not create checks and balances through regulations, etc, the small entities of the US would be at a great disadvantage. The buying public is included in the small entity category. So are small to moderate size organic farmers and organic businesses. OFPA protects them while protecting the public. Best Regards, Eric Kindberg To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 17:53:24 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA18245; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:53:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA19408; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA16646 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:31:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA16422 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout37.mail.aol.com (emout37.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.29]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA04307 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:30:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout37.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA13644; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971013172230_322460512@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: Buffalob@mhtc.net, richmo@indy.net cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, iatp@iatp.org, cvof@iquest.net, Sprinkraft@aol.com, wfof@ptel.net Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 149 Following are my responses: Best, Eric Kindberg In a message dated 97-09-20 13:19:29 EDT, Buffalob@mhtc.net writes: << Subj: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce Date: 97-09-20 13:19:29 EDT From: Buffalob@mhtc.net (D.B.Sullivan) To: richmo@indy.net CC: Erorganic@aol.com, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu (sanet-mg) ---------- > To: Rich Molini > To: sal > Cc: Erorganic@aol.com; smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov; sanet-mg > Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce > > > > Anyone that can not afford $250 per year to create a level playing floor > > >between thousands of farms across the nation selling ag products in direct > > >competition with each other at a premimum price needs to reorganize, either > > >becoming more efficient or find new markets or recognize that the price is > > >part of the cost of doing business. ===== > "The primary reason we have certification is because there is no connection and > trust between the farmer and the people that consume the food they > produce . We all know the way to make that connection is to grow and > sell local. . " ========= We raise 41 bison on 600 acres and slowly restablishing native grasses to our land for forage and wildlife habit. > I won't need certification to sell my bison . It is the restiction on the advertising not the cost I am concern about. > I will not need to get my pasture, grain and hay certified. > My marketing push is to connect to the people directly and share with them our growing, feeding, and processing practices. Sharing our goals thrrough economic balance , and environmental soundness I understand that the new organic minimum standard will not allow a producer to promote their product as better than another . So in the end the goverment will dictate what can be said about organics at the lowest level of organic production. We will not become certified organic however will adopt the practices of organic producers and market ourselves as enviromental friendly. We attempt to educate our customers on our practices of sustainability, ethical treatment of animals, and enviromental sensitive practices. Wish the best to all those would struggle to save our planet..... DBS >> Hello DBS, Under the National Organic Program authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 there is only one standard, a uniform and consistent standard for organic farm production, handling, certifying and labeling a product "organic" in domestic sales in the US. Only a State governing official can apply for approval from the Secretary of AG for additional standards of organic farming and handling that only apply within that particular State. Such is the law. Any certifying agency, accredited by USDA or not, can certify that a particular farm or product or handling operation meets any other standards, as long as they are truthful and not misleading to the public. There is no room for saying a particular farm, handling operation or product is more organic than another or superior in its organic qualities to another organic product. There is only one US national organic standard after implementation of OFPA. An accreditated organic certifying agency may have further requirements for use of its specific label or emblem. Perfectly legitimate. But there is only one USDA certified organic label and seal, the USDA's seal. Every accredited organic certifying agent will be empowered to determine whether a farm or handling operation applicant meets the NOP standards. If they meet the requirements, a license is issued for use of the phrase and USDA seal. If a farm or handling operation (one who processes, packages or stores organic product) needs to identify their kind of production, such should create a brand name label that on the packaging describes the details of production, location, been organic for 15 years, erosion below T, PETA approved, pay hired hands paid $16 per hour, you name it. The organic certification label can be on the same label. Nothing in OFPA prevents this. And if you want to pay OCIA International or FVO for the use of their label, do so. We hope you will join us to meet the national demand for organic products. Eric Kindberg, The Organic Farmers Marketing Association http:www//iquest.net/ofma/ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 17:53:41 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA18264; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA19514; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA12812 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA12674 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout20.mail.aol.com (emout20.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.46]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA04271 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:27:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout20.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA21166; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971013172234_240151136@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: sals@rain.org, brixman@erols.com, dhinds@ucol.mx cc: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, cooperative-bus@relay.doit.wisc.edu, cvof@iquest.net, iatp@iatp.org, Sprinkraft@aol.com, wfof@ptel.net Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 150 Hello Sal, For violation of OFPA there certainly are possible fines. Such Federal fines, from my limited knowledge, would go directly to the Treasury, no specific agency under US law. Returning to an earlier point, enforcement of OFPA falls to many different sectors of the Federal government, State governments and to accredited certifying agents under OFPA. Fines may come from any part of the enforcement system. In fact the charges by the NOP to certifying agent accreditation applicants are not for enforcement. They are for the specific functions I outlined in an earlier email. I think the State of California certified organic farmers and handlers who are paying what to them seem to high cost for enforcement of their State law need to get it together and go to Sacramento and change their law. As I pointed out before, it is illogical, egocentric and a misdirection of responsibility, to suggest California organic laws need to be solved by elimination of OFPA, when in fact the needed changes have to be effected on the California State level. Close reading of OFPA will indicate how the NOP can assist California in addressing these problems. It is always valuable to be reacquaited with the tendency of government bureacracies to feather their own nest. I guess my question is when are the certified organic farmers and handlers of California going to iniatiate a repeal and or improvement of the existing California organic laws? Best Regards, Eric Kindberg Organic growing has been sold out to the USDA and is now subject to under the table soft and hard money and pack money ,the whims of congress and special interest groups. That is right organic growing has been free to mankind for 6000 years yet the word organic is now a political football. This opens the poor organic grower up to all kinds of persecution and hardship and burdens. Because some one may cheat they are going to tax every organic grower that sell over $5000 of his food as organic. The poor organic grower is now out of the picture . If they cannot afford to pay the special organic growing tax they are out. The is just another way to oppress the poor. Let me look at the morning paper . humm Look who the cheaters are. Not the organic growers but the President and Vice President of the US of A seem to be under the hammer for cheating. And look here the former head of the USDA is being accused of taking under the table special interest money. hummm and they want to burden every one in the organic movement because someone may be cheating and they are the ones cheating the people of the U.S not the poor organic grower. The state of Ca. should take that organic tax on organic growing off the backs of the poor organic growers in Ca. and the feds have no business putting a special tax on organic growers and should be ashamed that they even tried. There is a law on the book for lying in labeling now and those that are not breaking the law should not have to pay for this whole police action. I say tax every one in politics make them and them alone pay for all this investigation of their own self. The Pres. and Vice should pay for this whole investigation if they did it or not just like they are trying to make the poor organic grower pay for his own investigations and herassment even though he is doing nothing wrong. I should not have to pay 1 Cent extra for growing and selling organic. - To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 17:59:06 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA18318; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA20887; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:54:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA12642 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:27:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA12580 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA04269 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:27:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA25600; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971013172133_-992302368@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, richmo@indy.net, sals@rain.org Subject: Re: Comments from California Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 151 Hello folks, Without repeating much of Sal's message, here is a response to Rich: > only want the big players and small organic farmers have no business > farming if they can not pay this extra tax for growing organic. Small > organic farmers why don't they all just fad away. There is nothing like a > level playing field. Thanks > If they charge the certifier the certifier pass the cost down to the > farmer if they charge an inspector it is the farmer that pays. the farmer > is paying for all this. It is just another way to bleed the turnips. > More government more taxes made up special for those crooked,lying organic > growers. I already pay an inspector, I already pay a certifier,I all ready > pay the state of Ca. this is getting nuts. How many pencil pushers do > organic farmers have to pay off just because they want to sell organic food > as organic. Sal, You're absolutely right on target when you discuss the burgeoning bureaucracy that is being constructed to remove dollars from the pocket of people who are actually growing organic product. All these people, organizations, and government agencies add absolutely not one iota of value to that product. We seem to be going down the same road that conventional ag went until it finally transformed those farmers into agribusiness puppets. I am president of the Indiana Chapter of OCIA and I would love nothing more than to see there be no need for certification. The primary reason we have certification is because there is no connection and trust between the farmer and the people that consume the food they produce . We all know the way to make that connection is to grow and (is to) sell local. Unfortunately, it takes time to build those markets and connections and therefore entrepreneurs ( certifying agencies, inspector trainers, consultants, etc) saw a route by which that they could parasitize people who actually work and produce goods. This appears to be the way of the modern world. People who really want to avoid work and can produce no useful product or service need to attach to those people that can. Every time money changes hands there is inevitably (sp) some other character around who wants to take a cut even though they neither have nor will add anything of value to that good or service. When organic beans go overseas to a processor there is no connection. Brokers, certifiers, etc obtain dollars. When organic produce comes to Indiana from California there is no connection. Enter parasites, once again. I don't need certification to sell my beef locally. When I can sell it all locally I will not need to get my pasture, grain and hay certified. I work with the folks in our Chapter because they are all wonderful productive people and I have told them that I look forward to the day when those agribusiness persons who do not meet a minimum standard of organic or sustainable production methods will be the ones surcharged and certified as social, economic , and environmental culprits, and will continue to be charged until they can prove otherwise. If most people really knew how their food was produced and what effects it has on rural communities and the natural systems, they would certainly demand that the "playing field be properly leveled". They would begin to understand that most of the costs of food are not added to the price of food, so food is consequently drastically under valued in this country and most of the world. They would begin to realize that agrichemical companies add no value but exact tremendous profits and in addition destroy people, communities , and natural ecosystems. Sal, I know I'm not really telling you anything you don't already know, but there are many others who read these messages that need to learn much of what organic farmers are trying to disseminate. All I really had to say was " Keep up the fight because there many folks who will benefit from your efforts". I guess I'm just getting both a little frustrated and verbose. Grow, buy, and sell local. Buck megatrends. Support local businesses and stay out of major chains. ( Walmart, etc are some of the worst plagues on this planet) >From Eric Kindberg Hello Rich and all, Firstly, I do not feel secure speaking for organic farmers, except when I quote either what the Organic Foods Production Act says, or I have in fact, sampled the consensus of organic farmers. Organic farmers created the organic certification agencies, the system of inspection and the standards for both farm and handling operation certification, both in terms of the private sector certification and ultimately most of the content of the Act. In the process their objective was to create a system to assure the consumer they were getting what they paid for--products produced and handled by a transparent and clearly stated system of farming and handling. Obviously, such a strong statement would take some time to determine and verify. Organic farmer's certification agencies had been experimenting and improving the organic certification system since the early 70s. In OCIA as in many other private sector certification agencies we attempted to perform this verification and determination of certification status as least expensive as possible, primarily with us, certified organic farmers, along with other non organic farmers, sitting on the certification determination committee. And yet, there was still a cost--administration, the inspector, the certificate. As anyone who has ever run a chapter of OCIA (or another private agency) and carried out quality certifications on say 25 farms and 5 handling operations in the course of one year using volunteer labor soon acknowledges, this is a lot of work--definitely non-profit. Only the inspector, perhaps the administrator is getting paid. Private for profit organic certifiers are few and far between. Farm Verified Organic, Quality Assurance International are really the only two that come to mind out of 65 US organic certifiers (if you count every OCIA and NOFA Chapter as a single certifier.) In fact every chapter of OCIA International and each NOFA Chapter are making the final decision on the qualifications of organic certification applicants. As private sector organic certifiers became more professional and organic standards grew to encompass all types of agriculture, along came the States. 24 or so now with State organic laws. Some of the laws are really registration laws with simple requirements a farm or handling operation must meet in order to use the word "organic"--California comes to mind. Other States got in the actual certifying of farms and handling operations, like Washington, New Mexico, Texas, Idaho, Maryland, New Hampshire, Louisiana. Other States approved the certification agencies that operate within their State like Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio and may have certain requirements to use the word "organic". All in all State organic laws tended to reflect somewhat what the existing private certifiers in these States wanted made into law. Some time State organic laws caused trouble for existing private sector certifiers. California might be interpreted as such. State organic programs as well as all other related state employees and their offices need to carry on their appointed work with the objective of balancing the interest of organic farmers, handlers and customers in light of applicable laws as their highest mission. Ultimately though, only the involved citizen can assure such an outcome. In Arkansas, a State law was brought before the the 1994 legislature by very influential members of the legislature. It started by charging everyone certified organic in Arkansas $25 and ended up coming out of committee asking for a minimum of $100 for the farmer and $200 for the handling operation. Furthermore, it turned the decision of who could be certified as well as accreditation of private certifiers over to the State Plant Board, who knew zero about organic farming, certifying or handling. We stopped the law by finding out who had proposed it--some very influential rice and soybean growers who had received request to supply organic field crops to large firms. When I talked with the individual farmers, explained there were already many private sector organic certifiers (provided phones and addresses) available to certify their land and handling operations and that the National Organic Program would soon come into being and supersede all State organic laws, perhaps creating havoc and confusion if Arkansas got into the certification program development with a Federal Law on the books, they called their representatives and the bill was immediately retracted. Common sense, good timing, close observation and communication performed the deed. All traits I might point out that the best farmers or business operations (also citizens in a democracy) anywhere must have to be successful. Now, I strongly suggest anyone actively concerned about the future of organic farming, handling, certification and the National Organic Program read the details of the law on the OFMA Website http://iquest.net/ofma/ You will find OFPA, the House/Senate Joint Conferee Report (the final reasons for passage of the final language of OFPA) and numerous documents related to what these documents say and their potential impact on the people effected. I know it sounds like a big order, but as Sagan use to say the librarys are very large, but their is usually only a very few important books related to what we want to know. Our problem is finding them. Here is one of the most important US laws: Every US citizen should know the details of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended in the 94 Congress. The RFA is to make sure that so called "small entities" are not detrimentally effected by Acts of Congress. RFA acknowledges that all Acts of Congress are passed to manage and regulate "large entities" not small entities. I simply can not take the time to quote RFA here, but will tell you that it is essential to read the RFA to know your rights concerning rule enactment as a US citizen, as a small business, a small farm, a small non-profit, a small or local community government. Under RFA small entities have a legal basis to not be burdened with regulations that would detrimentally effect their affairs. How OFMA believes the RFA applies to the organic community of small to moderate size farms, certifiers and businesses is also on the Website--http:www//iquest.net/ofma/ The OFMA Website will lead you to details of the RFA by touching the hyperlinks. Opinion and a lot of sputtering inflammatory rhetoric will not effect regulatory agencies. What does effect them is the necessity to follow the law. In a democracy it is the citizens' responsibility to make regulatory agencies follow the law, in this case, using OFPA and RFA and common sense, good timing, close observation and communication will do the job. Suit can follow if necessary. In previous or subsequent writings I have illustrated how OFPA can provide consumer assurance at a reasonable price, with reasonable paperwork and little intrusion into the life and business of an applicant for organic certification status. If you feel I am incorrect, I challenge you that each of ours first task is to be informed on the language and intent of OFPA and RFA. I think, rather I know, with OFPA and RFA as the basis of conversing and subsequent direct action, the direction to take in redressing Sal's grievances or Rich's suggestions for lessening the burden on small organic farmers, certifiers and handlers will become very clear, legal, powerful and be able to be joined by many others. Local production for local need and circumventing the unnecessary middle agent in marketing: Now, I am running out of time. Local organic production for local demand will only come into being throughout the US when there is a national, consistent and uniform organic standard and no interference in interstate trade of organic products. (Remember a lot of folks live near State lines which across them comprises a local market.) This only will occur with implementation of OFPA. Local production for local demand will only come into being when local farmers are efficient in biological management of their soils and are efficient in mechanical, labor (including harvest and post harvest handling) and marketing management and performance. If someone does not know what efficient management and performance is, visit the local, regional or national organic farm that is growing the fast and dominating the market. Price reflects efficiency in 99% of the cases. Those who are selling organic products at the most reasonable prices can do so for reasons of efficiency. Without visiting any farms, any farmer can innovate and become efficient by simply using the maxim of common sense, good timing, close observation and communication. But lets face it as organic farmers, many, many organic farmers are simply not efficient and have on occasion let quality not be a priority. There is no excuse in the market place for such production. Now on the marketers. The conventional wholesale distribution system exist as it is because it works--it fulfills the customers needs--those customers being the retail business buyer and translating (and influencing) the consumers needs and desires to the broker. Collusion exist, but what wholesalers can recognize very quickly is consistent production, consistent high quality, diversity of production and on time delivery. All these attributes are essential to any successful marketing of production, organic or conventional. There are real ways to change the existing wholesale distribution system, to make the linkage more direct and immediate between the consumer and the producer. Walmart, for the many objections voiced about it, was the biggest retail outlet to accomplish just that--shorten the link between producer and consumer. 4 years ago Walmart eliminated all the brokers and middle agents. Walmart became its own broker. And it passed part of the savings on to the consumer from its purchasing policy and started buying from the producers. The hint is there. Organic farmers have to ban together to consolidate knowledge of their supply, centralize offering of products and market it direct to the most direct market they can reach. The most direct, large volume market available to organic farmers is presently through the 10 coop warehouses and direct into coop storefronts--all 1200 of them across the country. Farmer markets including farm stands, restaurants and CSA groups are existing, immediate local options that can be individually developed. As anyone in organic farm production soon realizes, under the present marketing scenario, local markets are saturated rapidly once vegetable farms expand to in number an acreage. The same goes for field crop, dairy and livestock producers. To create consistent markets for increasing numbers of organic small to moderate farms, marketing must and will expand into the retail grocery outlets. A worthwhile question is whether organic farmers want to support the home grown cooperative grocery outlet or the mega-chains. All small to moderate size organic farmers selling individually know where they stand with the mega-chains--at the bottom of the food supply chain. So, why bother organizing production for them. Under the USDA National Organic Marketing Cooperative Feasibility Study a scenario for high speed telecommunication marketing was developed. The system was developed to give priority to local production for local sales by every 10 minutes from the beginning of a daily offering, enlarging the circle of offering by a 50 to a 100 mile radius from the epicenter of 5 to 6 organic farms location. If an order was taken, the volume was subtracted from the total offering. Prospective buyers could buy anytime but received a priority offering at the first offering of the day from local producers to buy firstly from local supply. By the same token as sales was not taken up locally, then ever enlarging regionally offerings were made. Offerings extend further out from the epicenter in concentric circles until the product(s) are sold. Such a complex system of priority for local sales and further expansion of sales opportunity was very costly and time consuming before the advent of high speed communications. Email is the preferred offering and contracting medium, cutting cost to a bare minimum. Organizing: A farmer run cooperative association is the only way to keep cost low and responsiveness to farmers high. The marketing association does not have to have in house sales staff, but could take bids from private or cooperative marketing businesses to operate on a contract basis with the association. Such a bidder would have to maintain all the other normal support services: production and transportation coordination, market development and post harvest handling quality education and control, perhaps a degree of production technical assistance and of course sales information consolidation, offering and accomplishment. The study concluded this is the only way small to moderate size organic farms in any number will be able to compete with the CalOrganics, Pavich Farms, Piedmont Farms, Cargill, Kellogg, Tyson or Montfort or MidAm. Further innovation and suggestions are in order. Each kind of crop production sector would have to design the style and procedures for the respective cooperative marketing association. A new organic marketing association would work to support an alternative more direct farmer to consumer distribution network--the coop distribution centers and coop storefronts. The Organic Farmers Marketing Association, meeting December 2 and 3, 1997 prior to the ACRES USA conference at the same hotel in St Louis, invites participation in developing such an approach for marketing organic products. For more information contact Val Carr at Vcarr@ccrtc.com or check the OFMA website http://www.iquest.net/ofma/ for more details. New organic handling operations for value added--innovative businesses and collaboration with existing cooperatives: Under OFPA, the national organic processing standards for livestock and other food products open marketing opportunities never available before. For the first time poultry, processed eggs and red meat will be able to be labeled "organic". New, local organic processing businesses will really have an island to stand on that separates them from conventional as well as a level field of standardized organic processing requirements that will allow them to compete on the taste and innovativeness of their processed organic product with the mega-marketers . Local value added organic products for local demand can be the lever that brings repeated sales over the mega-marketers both in terms of pulling sales away from conventional ag products and pulling sales away from out of region organic marketers. Maybe it is an opportunity for Indiana organic soybean producers to finally break into the expanding domestic and regional markets for soy products with development of their own value added line rather then selling to the brokers, who in turn sell to the processors, who in turn develop the processed organic food market. There are many more possibilities then one may imagine for organic farmers to develop cooperative value added. Farmer marketing cooperative value added is a multi-billion dollar industry in 1997 and expanding in billions every year. Organic is a new and untested market for them. Feasibility Study indications were that conventional farmer run marketing coops appear to be waiting for quality invitations on how to collaborate with organic farmers in new, organic market value added development. Best of luck, until we meet again, Eric Kindberg To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Oct 13 21:52:57 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA22254; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA23182; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id VAA19317 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id VAA19250 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from green.indy.net (green.indy.net [199.3.65.18]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id VAA11312 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from indy1.indy.net (root@indy1.indy.net [199.3.65.5]) by green.indy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA25520; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:21:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (ip72-203.ts.indy.net [199.3.72.203]) by indy1.indy.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA26740; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:21:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3442C92C.289D@indy.net> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:21:48 -0500 From: Rich Molini Reply-To: richmo@indy.net Organization: IndyNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-IndyNet (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erorganic@aol.com CC: smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, sals@rain.org Subject: Re: Comments from California References: <971013172133_-992302368@emout15.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 152 Erorganic@aol.com wrote: > > Hello folks, > > Without repeating much of Sal's message, here is a response to Rich: > > > only want the big players and small organic farmers have no business > > farming if they can not pay this extra tax for growing organic. Small > > organic farmers why don't they all just fad away. There is nothing like a > > level playing field. Thanks > > If they charge the certifier the certifier pass the cost down to the > > farmer if they charge an inspector it is the farmer that pays. the farmer > > is paying for all this. It is just another way to bleed the turnips. > > More government more taxes made up special for those crooked,lying organic > > growers. I already pay an inspector, I already pay a certifier,I all ready > > pay the state of Ca. this is getting nuts. How many pencil pushers do > > organic farmers have to pay off just because they want to sell organic food > > as organic. > Sal, > You're absolutely right on target when you discuss the burgeoning > bureaucracy that is being constructed to remove dollars from the pocket > of people who are actually growing organic product. All these people, > organizations, and government agencies add absolutely not one iota of > value to that product. We seem to be going down the same road that > conventional ag went until it finally transformed those farmers into > agribusiness puppets. > I am president of the Indiana Chapter of OCIA and I would love nothing > more than to see there be no need for certification. The primary > reason we have certification is because there is no connection and > trust between the farmer and the people that consume the food they > produce . We all know the way to make that connection is to grow and (is to) > sell local. Unfortunately, it takes time to build those markets and > connections and therefore entrepreneurs ( certifying agencies, inspector > trainers, consultants, etc) saw a route by which that they could > parasitize people who actually work and produce goods. This appears to > be the way of the modern world. People who really want to avoid work and > can produce no useful product or service need to attach to those people > that can. Every time money changes hands there is inevitably (sp) some > other character around who wants to take a cut even though they neither > have nor will add anything of value to that good or service. When > organic beans go overseas to a processor there is no connection. > Brokers, certifiers, etc obtain dollars. When organic produce comes to > Indiana from California there is no connection. Enter parasites, once > again. I don't need certification to sell my beef locally. When I can > sell it all locally I will not need to get my pasture, grain and hay > certified. I work with the folks in our Chapter because they are all > wonderful productive people and I have told them that I look forward to > the day when those agribusiness persons who do not meet a minimum > standard of organic or sustainable production methods will be the ones > surcharged and certified as social, economic , and environmental > culprits, and will continue to be charged until they can prove > otherwise. > If most people really knew how their food was produced and what effects > it has on rural communities and the natural systems, they would > certainly demand that the "playing field be properly leveled". They > would begin to understand that most of the costs of food are not added > to the price of food, so food is consequently drastically under valued > in this country and most of the world. They would begin to realize that > agrichemical companies add no value but exact tremendous profits and in > addition destroy people, communities , and natural ecosystems. > Sal, I know I'm not really telling you anything you don't already know, > but there are many others who read these messages that need to learn > much of what organic farmers are trying to disseminate. All I really had > to say was " Keep up the fight because there many folks who will benefit > from your efforts". I guess I'm just getting both a little frustrated > and verbose. Grow, buy, and sell local. Buck megatrends. Support local > businesses and stay out of major chains. ( Walmart, etc are some > of the worst plagues on this planet) > > >From Eric Kindberg > Hello Rich and all, > > Firstly, I do not feel secure speaking for organic farmers, except when I > quote either what the Organic Foods Production Act says, or I have in fact, > sampled the consensus of organic farmers. > > Organic farmers created the organic certification agencies, the system of > inspection and the standards for both farm and handling operation > certification, both in terms of the private sector certification and > ultimately most of the content of the Act. In the process their objective > was to create a system to assure the consumer they were getting what they > paid for--products produced and handled by a transparent and clearly stated > system of farming and handling. Obviously, such a strong statement would > take some time to determine and verify. Organic farmer's certification > agencies had been experimenting and improving the organic certification > system since the early 70s. In OCIA as in many other private sector > certification agencies we attempted to perform this verification and > determination of certification status as least expensive as possible, > primarily with us, certified organic farmers, along with other non organic > farmers, sitting on the certification determination committee. And yet, > there was still a cost--administration, the inspector, the certificate. As > anyone who has ever run a chapter of OCIA (or another private agency) and > carried out quality certifications on say 25 farms and 5 handling operations > in the course of one year using volunteer labor soon acknowledges, this is a > lot of work--definitely non-profit. Only the inspector, perhaps the > administrator is getting paid. Private for profit organic certifiers are few > and far between. Farm Verified Organic, Quality Assurance International are > really the only two that come to mind out of 65 US organic certifiers (if you > count every OCIA and NOFA Chapter as a single certifier.) In fact every > chapter of OCIA International and each NOFA Chapter are making the final > decision on the qualifications of organic certification applicants. As > private sector organic certifiers became more professional and organic > standards grew to encompass all types of agriculture, along came the States. > 24 or so now with State organic laws. Some of the laws are really > registration laws with simple requirements a farm or handling operation must > meet in order to use the word "organic"--California comes to mind. Other > States got in the actual certifying of farms and handling operations, like > Washington, New Mexico, Texas, Idaho, Maryland, New Hampshire, Louisiana. > Other States approved the certification agencies that operate within their > State like Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio and may have certain > requirements to use the word "organic". All in all State organic laws tended > to reflect somewhat what the existing private certifiers in these States > wanted made into law. Some time State organic laws caused trouble for > existing private sector certifiers. California might be interpreted as such. > State organic programs as well as all other related state employees and > their offices need to carry on their appointed work with the objective of > balancing the interest of organic farmers, handlers and customers in light of > applicable laws as their highest mission. Ultimately though, only the > involved citizen can assure such an outcome. > > In Arkansas, a State law was brought before the the 1994 legislature by very > influential members of the legislature. It started by charging everyone > certified organic in Arkansas $25 and ended up coming out of committee asking > for a minimum of $100 for the farmer and $200 for the handling operation. > Furthermore, it turned the decision of who could be certified as well as > accreditation of private certifiers over to the State Plant Board, who knew > zero about organic farming, certifying or handling. We stopped the law by > finding out who had proposed it--some very influential rice and soybean > growers who had received request to supply organic field crops to large > firms. When I talked with the individual farmers, explained there were > already many private sector organic certifiers (provided phones and > addresses) available to certify their land and handling operations and that > the National Organic Program would soon come into being and supersede all > State organic laws, perhaps creating havoc and confusion if Arkansas got into > the certification program development with a Federal Law on the books, they > called their representatives and the bill was immediately retracted. Common > sense, good timing, close observation and communication performed the deed. > All traits I might point out that the best farmers or business operations > (also citizens in a democracy) anywhere must have to be successful. > > Now, I strongly suggest anyone actively concerned about the future of organic > farming, handling, certification and the National Organic Program read the > details of the law on the OFMA Website http://iquest.net/ofma/ You will > find OFPA, the House/Senate Joint Conferee Report (the final reasons for > passage of the final language of OFPA) and numerous documents related to what > these documents say and their potential impact on the people effected. I > know it sounds like a big order, but as Sagan use to say the librarys are > very large, but their is usually only a very few important books related to > what we want to know. Our problem is finding them. Here is one of the most > important US laws: Every US citizen should know the details of the Regulatory > Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended in the 94 Congress. The RFA is to make sure > that so called "small entities" are not detrimentally effected by Acts of > Congress. RFA acknowledges that all Acts of Congress are passed to manage > and regulate "large entities" not small entities. I simply can not take the > time to quote RFA here, but will tell you that it is essential to read the > RFA to know your rights concerning rule enactment as a US citizen, as a small > business, a small farm, a small non-profit, a small or local community > government. Under RFA small entities have a legal basis to not be burdened > with regulations that would detrimentally effect their affairs. How OFMA > believes the RFA applies to the organic community of small to moderate size > farms, certifiers and businesses is also on the > Website--http:www//iquest.net/ofma/ The OFMA Website will lead you to > details of the RFA by touching the hyperlinks. Opinion and a lot of > sputtering inflammatory rhetoric will not effect regulatory agencies. What > does effect them is the necessity to follow the law. In a democracy it is > the citizens' responsibility to make regulatory agencies follow the law, in > this case, using OFPA and RFA and common sense, good timing, close > observation and communication will do the job. Suit can follow if necessary. > > > In previous or subsequent writings I have illustrated how OFPA can provide > consumer assurance at a reasonable price, with reasonable paperwork and > little intrusion into the life and business of an applicant for organic > certification status. If you feel I am incorrect, I challenge you that each > of ours first task is to be informed on the language and intent of OFPA and > RFA. I think, rather I know, with OFPA and RFA as the basis of conversing > and subsequent direct action, the direction to take in redressing Sal's > grievances or Rich's suggestions for lessening the burden on small organic > farmers, certifiers and handlers will become very clear, legal, powerful and > be able to be joined by many others. > > Local production for local need and circumventing the unnecessary middle > agent in marketing: > Now, I am running out of time. Local organic production for local demand > will only come into being throughout the US when there is a national, > consistent and uniform organic standard and no interference in interstate > trade of organic products. (Remember a lot of folks live near State lines > which across them comprises a local market.) This only will occur with > implementation of OFPA. Local production for local demand will only come > into being when local farmers are efficient in biological management of their > soils and are efficient in mechanical, labor (including harvest and post > harvest handling) and marketing management and performance. If someone does > not know what efficient management and performance is, visit the local, > regional or national organic farm that is growing the fast and dominating the > market. Price reflects efficiency in 99% of the cases. Those who are > selling organic products at the most reasonable prices can do so for reasons > of efficiency. Without visiting any farms, any farmer can innovate and > become efficient by simply using the maxim of common sense, good timing, > close observation and communication. But lets face it as organic farmers, > many, many organic farmers are simply not efficient and have on occasion let > quality not be a priority. There is no excuse in the market place for such > production. > > Now on the marketers. > The conventional wholesale distribution system exist as it is because it > works--it fulfills the customers needs--those customers being the retail > business buyer and translating (and influencing) the consumers needs and > desires to the broker. Collusion exist, but what wholesalers can recognize > very quickly is consistent production, consistent high quality, diversity of > production and on time delivery. All these attributes are essential to any > successful marketing of production, organic or conventional. > > There are real ways to change the existing wholesale distribution system, to > make the linkage more direct and immediate between the consumer and the > producer. Walmart, for the many objections voiced about it, was the biggest > retail outlet to accomplish just that--shorten the link between producer and > consumer. 4 years ago Walmart eliminated all the brokers and middle agents. > Walmart became its own broker. And it passed part of the savings on to the > consumer from its purchasing policy and started buying from the producers. > The hint is there. Organic farmers have to ban together to consolidate > knowledge of their supply, centralize offering of products and market it > direct to the most direct market they can reach. The most direct, large > volume market available to organic farmers is presently through the 10 coop > warehouses and direct into coop storefronts--all 1200 of them across the > country. Farmer markets including farm stands, restaurants and CSA groups > are existing, immediate local options that can be individually developed. As > anyone in organic farm production soon realizes, under the present marketing > scenario, local markets are saturated rapidly once vegetable farms expand to > in number an acreage. The same goes for field crop, dairy and livestock > producers. To create consistent markets for increasing numbers of organic > small to moderate farms, marketing must and will expand into the retail > grocery outlets. A worthwhile question is whether organic farmers want to > support the home grown cooperative grocery outlet or the mega-chains. All > small to moderate size organic farmers selling individually know where they > stand with the mega-chains--at the bottom of the food supply chain. So, why > bother organizing production for them. > > Under the USDA National Organic Marketing Cooperative Feasibility Study a > scenario for high speed telecommunication marketing was developed. The > system was developed to give priority to local production for local sales by > every 10 minutes from the beginning of a daily offering, enlarging the circle > of offering by a 50 to a 100 mile radius from the epicenter of 5 to 6 organic > farms location. If an order was taken, the volume was subtracted from the > total offering. Prospective buyers could buy anytime but received a priority > offering at the first offering of the day from local producers to buy firstly > from local supply. By the same token as sales was not taken up locally, then > ever enlarging regionally offerings were made. Offerings extend further out > from the epicenter in concentric circles until the product(s) are sold. Such > a complex system of priority for local sales and further expansion of sales > opportunity was very costly and time consuming before the advent of high > speed communications. Email is the preferred offering and contracting > medium, cutting cost to a bare minimum. > > Organizing: > A farmer run cooperative association is the only way to keep cost low and > responsiveness to farmers high. The marketing association does not have to > have in house sales staff, but could take bids from private or cooperative > marketing businesses to operate on a contract basis with the association. > Such a bidder would have to maintain all the other normal support services: > production and transportation coordination, market development and post > harvest handling quality education and control, perhaps a degree of > production technical assistance and of course sales information > consolidation, offering and accomplishment. The study concluded this is the > only way small to moderate size organic farms in any number will be able to > compete with the CalOrganics, Pavich Farms, Piedmont Farms, Cargill, Kellogg, > Tyson or Montfort or MidAm. Further innovation and suggestions are in order. > > Each kind of crop production sector would have to design the style and > procedures for the respective cooperative marketing association. A new > organic marketing association would work to support an alternative more > direct farmer to consumer distribution network--the coop distribution centers > and coop storefronts. The Organic Farmers Marketing Association, meeting > December 2 and 3, 1997 prior to the ACRES USA conference at the same hotel in > St Louis, invites participation in developing such an approach for marketing > organic products. For more information contact Val Carr at Vcarr@ccrtc.com > or check the OFMA website http://www.iquest.net/ofma/ for more details. > > New organic handling operations for value added--innovative businesses and > collaboration with existing cooperatives: > Under OFPA, the national organic processing standards for livestock and other > food products open marketing opportunities never available before. For the > first time poultry, processed eggs and red meat will be able to be labeled > "organic". New, local organic processing businesses will really have an > island to stand on that separates them from conventional as well as a level > field of standardized organic processing requirements that will allow them to > compete on the taste and innovativeness of their processed organic product > with the mega-marketers . Local value added organic products for local > demand can be the lever that brings repeated sales over the mega-marketers > both in terms of pulling sales away from conventional ag products and pulling > sales away from out of region organic marketers. Maybe it is an opportunity > for Indiana organic soybean producers to finally break into the expanding > domestic and regional markets for soy products with development of their own > value added line rather then selling to the brokers, who in turn sell to the > processors, who in turn develop the processed organic food market. There are > many more possibilities then one may imagine for organic farmers to develop > cooperative value added. Farmer marketing cooperative value added is a > multi-billion dollar industry in 1997 and expanding in billions every year. > Organic is a new and untested market for them. Feasibility Study > indications were that conventional farmer run marketing coops appear to be > waiting for quality invitations on how to collaborate with organic farmers in > new, organic market value added development. > > Best of luck, until we meet again, > > Eric Kindberg Sorry to those of you who felt this discussion should die, but I must respond when prompted. Eric, And I thought Sal was the king of stream of consciousness. Thanks for the "War and Peace Primer" on Organic America. Through all the verbosity, I think you demonstrate and make it clear that if it takes about 4000 words to state the reasons for NOP that is exactly what the product will be, a complicated and inherently unstable system. OFPA, RFA, HOOPLA. I prefer to engage in what you term "opinion and sputtering inflammatory rhetoric" rather than participate in building another bureaucratic nightmare for farmers. When you and your OFMA comrades must cite the scriptures of OFPA, you have surely succumbed to the regulatory ridiculousness. Yes I know it contains some pertinent messages, but they are clouded and swallowed by the cluttering control. Yes, I accept it, but primarily as a necessary evil for many at this time. Reread my mail and see that I was speaking specifically of sensible food production when I referred to the message that organic farmers are trying to disseminate. I speak for nobody's politics. Certifications assures little more than its own self perpetuation and was created because it was assumed to think global. You can concentrate on overseas, out of state, or some other obscure markets. I see no state lines. My passion is a stable locally based food system regardless of political boundaries. Please don't forget alot of people make a living off of certification, and I feel OFPA ensures little more than many more will now be able to cash in. BTW, Walmart is the absolute epitome of unsustainability. If it were not for favorable tax law they could not continue to participate in the destruction of the fabric of rural America. Enough for now. Thanks, Rich Molini To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 14 12:07:17 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA08994; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA00041; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:02:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id LAA05309 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id LAA05227 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hqmail.usda.gov (hqmail.usda.gov [199.128.3.90]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id LAA08076; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:41:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from x400@localhost) by hqmail.usda.gov (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA17446; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text X400-MTS-Identifier: [/P=GOV+USDA/A=ATTMAIL/C=US/;344394E6.CDD8.031B.000] Content-Identifier: Re More Debate O UA-Content-Id: Re More Debate O Autoforwarded: FALSE Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Personal Received: by ATTMAIL; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 9:42:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 9:42:00 -0400 From: Grace J Gershuny Subject: Re More Debate Orgo Certification To: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu (Receipt Notification Requested), sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu (Receipt Notification Requested) Message-Id: <344394E6.CDD8.031B.000@MHS> X-Mailer: Worldtalk (4.1.1-p1)/MIME Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 153 Dear Chuck, Thanks for riding herd on this--it has been getting a bit too repetitive and lacking in information (which is understandable, given the situation). I like your suggestion of a "chat room" and would also suggest the OFMA home page as a good place for this (I'm sure someone can provide the url, it's not right in front of me). So, my input is: ENOUGH FOR NOW, but: only as far as discussion about what people think the NOP proposed rule will or will not say. (Maybe I'm biased because I am one of the lucky people who will have to read ALL the public input that comes in about the proposed rule.) Regards, Grace Gershuny USDA, National Organic Program Staff To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 14 14:47:50 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.iupac.org [152.2.254.86]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA12069; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:47:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA20296; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:42:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id OAA05489 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id OAA05406 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:09:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from comet.connix.com (root@comet.connix.com [198.69.10.4]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id OAA13484 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:09:46 -0400 (EDT) From: kstoner@caes.state.ct.us Received: from 205.246.104.21 (entomol.connix.com [205.246.104.21]) by comet.connix.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA21310 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710141809.OAA21310@comet.connix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re More Debate Orgo Certification To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 154 It has been very enlightening, but I think the most useful points have been made and re-made. Enough for now. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 14 15:19:59 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA12503; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:19:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA00275; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:15:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id OAA01686 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id OAA01673 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from romeo.its.uwo.ca (romeo.its.uwo.ca [129.100.2.60]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id OAA15177 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ts11-3.slip.uwo.ca by romeo.its.uwo.ca with SMTP id OAA12134; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710141855.OAA12134@romeo.its.uwo.ca> X-Sender: dmcleod@julian.uwo.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: glenn mcleod Subject: Thanks & SA in Guatemala Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 155 My thanks to allwho replied to my original request for information regarding volunteer service in Latin America. My wife and I will be starting in Guatemala with Volunteer Misionary Movement (VMM) in the new year and are very excited about it. I would be interested in receiving information about places in Guatemala that are involved in Sustainable Agriculture TIA Glenn McLeod Glenn & Mary Jane McLeod 776 Cromarty Drive Dorchester, ON. N0L 1G5 Fax 1(519)268-3347 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 14 19:16:16 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA23562; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:16:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA14860; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id SAA27498 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id SAA27428 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from comp.uark.edu (root@comp.uark.edu [130.184.252.197]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id SAA24061 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ncatark.uark.edu (ncatark.uark.edu [130.184.41.248]) by comp.uark.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA02092 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:55:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Unknown ([130.184.41.238]) by ncatark.uark.edu (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id WAA04389 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:56:37 GMT Message-Id: <199710142256.WAA04389@ncatark.uark.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Steve Diver" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:43:27 +0000 Subject: URL's for Organic Program: OFPA-NOSB-USDA-OFMA-ATTRA Reply-to: steved@ncatark.uark.edu X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 156 ============================================= Following is a quick list of URL's and contacts for: * Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) * National Organic Standards Boards (NOSB) recommedations * USDA-Agriculture Marketing Service (USDA-AMS) contacts * Organic Farmers Marketing Association (OFMA) * Organic Certification publication & organizations list from ATTRA ============================================== 1. URL's for USDA-AMS Organics Program http://www.ams.usda.gov/ http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/organic.htm http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/tmdnop.htm Harold S. Ricker, (202) 720-2704 National Organic Program Program Leader Harold_S_Ricker@usda.gov 2. URL's for NOSB/OFPA on Cascadian Farms's web site a. NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS Adopted June 1-4, 1994, in Santa Fe, New Mexico ORGANIC CROP PRODUCTION STANDARDS http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/OrganicCrop/0Table.htm b. The Organic Foods Production Act: A Guide to the Recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/Guide/0index.htm Including information on: The Organic Foods Production Act The National Organic Program The National Organic Standards Board Organic Certification Accreditation of Certifying Agents Organic Crop Production Standards Organic Livestock Production Organic Processing, Handling and Labeling Imported Products Enforcement and Penalties The National List of Materials Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations Who's Who at the USDA Who's Who at the FDA Resource List This Guide was produced by Organic Harvest, the educational program of the Organic Trade Association, Organic Harvest/OTA P.O. Box 1078, Greenfield, MA 01302 50 Miles St., Greenfield, MA 01301 phone: 413/774-7511 fax: 413/774-6432 e-mail: ota@igc.apc.org c. WHO'S WHO on the National Organic Program Staff at US Department of Agriculture http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/Guide/a4Staff.htm Harold Ricker, Program Manager Michael Hankin, Senior agricultural marketing specialist Grace Gershuny, Marketing specialist Beth Hayden, Marketing specialist Michael Johnson, Marketing specialist Ted Rogers, Marketing specialist Toni Strothers, Marketing specialist Karen Thomas, Marketing specialist Gayle Chandler, Support staff Contact: The National Organic Standards Program USDA/AMS/TMD Room 2510, South Building P.O. Box 96456 Washington, DC 20090-6456 phone: 202/720-8331 fax: 202/720-7808 d. SUMMARY OF NOSB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MATERIALS CONSIDERED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS NOVEMBER 1995 http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/Materials/Austin.htm Processing Materials Crop Materials Livestock Materials e. NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD DEFINITION OF "ORGANIC" http://www.cfarm.com/nosb/New/definition.htm The following definition of "organic" was drafted and passed by the NOSB at their April 1995 meeting in Orlando, Florida. It was developed by a joint NOSB/National Organic Program task force, and incorporates language from the Codex Draft Guidelines for organically produced foods. This definition is being distributed for your information. Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony. "Organic" is a labeling term that denotes products produced under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. The principal guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole. Organic agriculture practices cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues; however, methods are used to minimize pollution from air, soil and water. Organic food handlers, processors and retailers adhere to standards that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people. 3. URL for Organic Farmers Marketing Association: http://www.iquest.net/ofma/ Organic Foods Production Act of 1990--full text http://www.iquest.net/ofma/ofpa.htm 4. URL for Organic Certification publication & list of certifcation organizations from ATTRA http://www.attra.org ================================================ ================================================ Steve Diver ATTRA -- steved@ncatark.uark.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From dmhinds@acnet.net Tue Oct 14 23:41:40 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA03325 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:41:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA07360 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.47]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id WAA09302; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:43:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <34444728.79A4@acnet.net> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:31:36 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erorganic@aol.com CC: london@sunsite.unc.edu, richmo@indy.net, sals@rain.org, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce References: <971013172157_1825127520@emout04.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 157 Erorganic@aol.com wrote: > > >...concerning the multiple number of issues > that Sal, Rich, Douglas and others have raised...I challenge all four of you and > any others to use OFPA and > RFA (Regulatory Flexibility Act) as the basis of further discussion ..We are not > writing an Act of Congress, we are operating within the > parameters of existing Congressional Acts. I don't buy that. > We concluded that an Act is an Act is an Act of Congress. Acts can be reenacted, and some should be. > Does Douglas need to be certified organic as a > handler of organic products from Mexico? (Anyone who receives or otherwise > acquires agricultural products; and processes, packages or stores such > products must be certified as an organic handling operation. However, > Douglas may be a good example of what is called a "commission agent" under > PACA, the Perishable Agricultural Commodity Act, in the US, and in fact does > not have to be certified as an organic handling operation under OFPA because > a "commission agent" by definition does not receive or acquire perishable > product.) Sorry but I can't answer that because I've got to revise and get the contract back to the lawyer tomorrow for the packing and processing operation that we're putting together here, finish another one for the growers who have asked us to help provide them with viable biological control methods for 360 acres of virgin land that they want to keep free of the fungus that cause IBS (Internal Browning Syndrome) in pineapple so they can (have their fruit certified and) channel it to the organic market (yeah, we're going to help them get a fair price for it too) and call the university's coordinator of their upcoming event on Sustainable Agriculture regarding the conference I was invitated to moderate. When there's a little more time to spare I'll be happy to mention some of our other ongoing projects like PATIO (Parque Agro-Tecnologico e Industrial de Occidente), an Agro-Tecnology Science Park for the Development and Application of Bio-Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Processes. (Eric knows we're doing all these things so I have no idea why he says this stuff). Say no to drugs! (Is that the problem)? Regarding the pineapple project: I'm going to have to do a little research on it, so if there's anybody knowledgeable out there regarding this issue, I'd appreciate their letting me know what's done the job. -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Oct 14 23:58:52 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA03643; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA11399; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id XAA25409 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:37:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id XAA25400 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id XAA01931 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.47]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id WAA09302; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:43:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <34444728.79A4@acnet.net> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:31:36 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erorganic@aol.com CC: london@sunsite.unc.edu, richmo@indy.net, sals@rain.org, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce References: <971013172157_1825127520@emout04.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 158 Erorganic@aol.com wrote: > > >...concerning the multiple number of issues > that Sal, Rich, Douglas and others have raised...I challenge all four of you and > any others to use OFPA and > RFA (Regulatory Flexibility Act) as the basis of further discussion ..We are not > writing an Act of Congress, we are operating within the > parameters of existing Congressional Acts. I don't buy that. > We concluded that an Act is an Act is an Act of Congress. Acts can be reenacted, and some should be. > Does Douglas need to be certified organic as a > handler of organic products from Mexico? (Anyone who receives or otherwise > acquires agricultural products; and processes, packages or stores such > products must be certified as an organic handling operation. However, > Douglas may be a good example of what is called a "commission agent" under > PACA, the Perishable Agricultural Commodity Act, in the US, and in fact does > not have to be certified as an organic handling operation under OFPA because > a "commission agent" by definition does not receive or acquire perishable > product.) Sorry but I can't answer that because I've got to revise and get the contract back to the lawyer tomorrow for the packing and processing operation that we're putting together here, finish another one for the growers who have asked us to help provide them with viable biological control methods for 360 acres of virgin land that they want to keep free of the fungus that cause IBS (Internal Browning Syndrome) in pineapple so they can (have their fruit certified and) channel it to the organic market (yeah, we're going to help them get a fair price for it too) and call the university's coordinator of their upcoming event on Sustainable Agriculture regarding the conference I was invitated to moderate. When there's a little more time to spare I'll be happy to mention some of our other ongoing projects like PATIO (Parque Agro-Tecnologico e Industrial de Occidente), an Agro-Tecnology Science Park for the Development and Application of Bio-Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Processes. (Eric knows we're doing all these things so I have no idea why he says this stuff). Say no to drugs! (Is that the problem)? Regarding the pineapple project: I'm going to have to do a little research on it, so if there's anybody knowledgeable out there regarding this issue, I'd appreciate their letting me know what's done the job. -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 15 10:15:02 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA08017; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:15:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA23143; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id JAA17286 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id JAA17282 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from romeo.its.uwo.ca (romeo.its.uwo.ca [129.100.2.60]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id JAA19587 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ts3-32.slip.uwo.ca by romeo.its.uwo.ca with SMTP id JAA18136; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 09:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710151351.JAA18136@romeo.its.uwo.ca> X-Sender: dmcleod@julian.uwo.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: glenn mcleod Subject: Thanks & SA in Guatemala Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 159 : My thanks to all who replied to my original request for information regarding volunteer service in Latin America. My wife and I will be starting in Guatemala with Volunteer Misionary Movement (VMM) in the new year and are very excited about it. I would be interested in receiving information about places in Guatemala that are involved in Sustainable Agriculture. TIA Glenn McLeod Glenn & Mary Jane McLeod 776 Cromarty Drive Dorchester, ON. N0L 1G5 Fax 1(519)268-3347 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 15 13:38:04 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA10759; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA25633; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id NAA20927 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id NAA20775 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:14:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id NAA29167 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02114; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:14:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:14:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" X-Sender: san@cliff To: sanet-mg cc: lmmeinho@facstaff.wisc.edu Subject: Conference Announcement/Call for Papers (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 160 For more information contact Lynn Meinholz at (608) 262-3658, or visit our home page at . ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:39:16 -0500 From: Lynn Meinholz To: san@nal.usda.gov Subject: Conference Announcement/Call for Papers The North American Program of the Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison is pleased to announce its upcoming conference, Who Owns America? II: How Land and Natural Resources are Owned and Controlled. The conference will be held June 3- 6, 1998 at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our primary goals are: * provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and information about land and natural resource tenure issues in North American--Canada, Northern Mexico, and the U.S. and * assemble as large and diverse a group of interested parties as possible. The following paragraphs are provided to give you additional information about major themes that will be emphasized in the conference. Who Owns America? II follows our highly successful 1995 conference, which brought together participants ranging from academics to activists to discuss North American land tenure issues. The event drew national media attention and rave reviews from participants. Thanks to generous support from the W.K. Kellogg, Otto Bremer, and Ford Foundations, we hope to draw even wider participation to this conference. Proposals for papers, panels, poster sessions, and films/videos on any topic related to land tenure in North America are welcome. However, the conference will emphasize the following themes: A Bundle of Rights: Law, Policy and the Politics of Land This theme examines how law, policy and politics figure into land ownership controversies. In addition, sessions that showcase innovative legal and policy alternatives are encouraged. Topics might include, "Did government create property rights and if so, can it modify these rights on behalf of the greater good?" or "Can land values be maintained without land use controls?" Cultures, Ethics, and the Land This theme is designed to generate dialogue about ways in which culture, ethics and values play themselves out in our understanding of land ownership and control over natural resources. Influenced by race, ethnicity and gender, culture is the sum total of our values and beliefs. Sample topics: "How are perceptions of land tenure affected by cultural values and land ethics?" or "What conflicts arise as a result?" For Land and Money: Economic Realities and Alternatives The relationships between land markets, land use regulations, and the environment are the focus of this theme, as are sessions that explore the interplay between economics and land tenure in the broadest sense. Topics such as these are of interest: "Can the market alone regulate land use and the environment?" "What obligation do lenders have, if any, apart from meeting market-driven demands?" "How do government actions such as taxation and regulation affect land tenure?" This Land Was My Land: Land Loss Prevention and Recovery This theme explores how people lose their land, what can be done to prevent further loss, and the existing strategies for recovering land. Land loss in North America has many faces: midwest farmers, Native Americans (including Native Alaskans), southern Black landowners, urban elderly, Latino colonia residents. Topics of particular interest include: "How can fractionated heir property be avoided?" "Do lease arrangments play a role in land loss?" "Can land trusts prevent land loss?" Natural Resources Ownership and Management Control over and use of forest, water, mineral, fish and wildlife resources continue to generate controversy. This theme seeks to foster discussion of natural resource ownership and management controversies, and how to avoid them. "What are these controversies really about?" "How are dependent communities, business interests, and future generations affected by struggles over resource use and their outcomes?" What are alternative ways of approaching resource management and property rights?" Thank you for your assistance in publicizing the conference. If we can provide you with additional information about the conference, please contact Professor Gene Summers or Lynn Meinholz at (608) 262-3658 or e-mail ltc-nap@facstaff.wisc.edu. Sincerely, Gene Summers, Director North American Program ***************************************************************************** CALL FOR PAPERS, PANELS, POSTERS AND SESSION ORGANIZERS Who Owns America? II How Land and Natural Resources are Owned and Controlled A North American conference hosted by the Land Tenure Center, North American Program, University of Wisconsin- Madison, 3-6 June 1998. The conference will bring together public policymakers, grassroots activists, business interests, academic representatives, non-governmental organizations, and private citizens interested in tenure issues from the United States, Canada, and Northern Mexico. DEADLINE: 1 November 1997 Proposals for papers, panels, posters, and videos/films or for organizing a session should be submitted by 1 November 1997 to Gene Summers, Director, North American Program, Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1357 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53715; fax (608) 262-2141; e-mail: . Abstracts or descriptions should not exceed two double-spaced typewritten pages. A limited number of travel scholarships are available for persons whose participation requires financial assistance. For more information contact Lynn Meinholz at (608) 262-3658, or visit our home page at . To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 15 14:01:32 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA11374; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA02328; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id NAA29863 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id NAA29853 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id NAA29775 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02950; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:31:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:31:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" X-Sender: san@cliff To: sanet-mg Subject: POSTPONED: Fwd: MEDIA WORKSHOP (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by luna.oit.unc.edu id OAA11374 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 161 Please note that this workshop has been postponed. Andy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:02:55 -0500 From: Katherine Griffith To: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" Subject: Re: Fwd: MEDIA WORKSHOP (fwd) Please note, the workshop has been postponed to an indefinite winter date -- we hope to get out a new posting within a week or two. Thanks for your attention, Kat At 12:14 PM 9/26/97 -0400, you wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >For more information contact Prescott Bergh or Kat Griffith (CC'd). > >Kat Griffith, Communications Coordinator, Wisconsin Integrated Cropping >Systems Trial (WICST) and the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute >tel. 608/233-5029 (home office, afternoons best) >fax 608/265-3020 (please call me if you send a fax) >email: kbgriffi@facstaff.wisc.edu >snailmail: 2122 Kendall Ave., Madison WI 53705 > > >MEDIA SKILLS AND STRATEGY WORKSHOP >FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE ACTIVISTS! > >Mark your calendars! A two-day media workshop for sustainable ag >activists is scheduled for November 4-6 in Minnesota. The workshop is >designed to meet the needs of program staff who do communications and >outreach, as well as farmers and others who conduct field days and speak >publicly on behalf of sustainable agriculture. The workshop is organized >by the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute of Wisconsin and the >Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and funded by the W. K. Kellogg >Foundation. > >The workshop will cover the following skills: > >· Message development >· Writing for greater media impact >· On-camera interviews and public speaking >· Media tactics >· Radio actualities (“home-produced” radio spots) >· TV and radio talk shows >· Maximizing attendance at and media coverage of your events >· Creating individual media plans > >Many of your colleagues from SAWG, the Campaign for Sustainable >Agriculture, and the Integrated Farming Systems network have attended >previous workshops in August of '96 and February of '97. You may read >what they said about the experience at the end of this announcement. >Below are details of the workshop and a registration form. > >If you are interested, register NOW. The last workshop was substantially >oversubscribed, and we had to turn people away. > >Cost: Participants will cover their own transportation, room and board. >Room and board will cost about $70 per person. A $50 deposit must >accompany the registration form. A limited number of travel scholarships >will be available for those who must fly. > >Location: The workshop will be in Alexandria, MN, about 2 1/2 hours >northwest of Minneapolis. > >Accomodations: The workshop will be held at Luther Crest Bible Camp, a >pleasant new facility in rural MN. Rooms sleep three, and have private >baths. > >Timing: Workshop registration will begin at 4 pm on Tuesday, November 4, >with dinner at 5:30 and the first workshop activity at 7 pm. The workshop >will end at 4 pm on Thursday, November 6. > >Eligibility: Anyone working in sustainable agriculture advocacy >(particularly with the IFFS network, SAWG or the Campaign for Sustainable >Agriculture) may attend. The workshop will be particularly useful for >those who already work to some degree in communications, education and >outreach. Participants should be committed to doing media work as an >integral part of their outreach work following the workshop. >Organizations and projects are encouraged to send more than one individual >to the workshop. > >Scholarships: There will be travel scholarships available for a few >participants. Stipends will be negotiated individually, and will be made >on a first come, first served basis. > >Trainers: The trainers will be from the Safe Energy Communications Council, >which has provided highly regarded workshops to environmental and >sustainable agriculture activists nationwide. > >Applications: Contact Prescott Bergh at the address below for a >registration form, or use the form provided below. Registration is on a >first come, first served basis. > >Prescott Bergh, Outreach Coordinator >Sustainable Agriculture Program of the MN Dept. of Agriculture >90 West Plato Blvd. >Saint Paul, MN 55107 >tel. 612/215-0367 >fax 612/297-7678 >email prescott.bergh@state.mn.us > >For more information contact Prescott Bergh or Kat Griffith (below): > >Kat Griffith, Communications Coordinator, Wisconsin Integrated Cropping >Systems Trial (WICST) and the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute >tel. 608/233-5029 (home office, afternoons best) >fax 608/265-3020 (please call me if you send a fax) >email: kbgriffi@facstaff.wisc.edu >snailmail: 2122 Kendall Ave., Madison WI 53705 > > >Media Skills and Strategy Workshop Registration Form > >Name_______________________________________________________________ > >Phone/fax ____________________________________________________________ > >Organization/project____________________________________________________ > >Role or title in project or organization >______________________________________ > >Mailing address _______________________________________________________ > >____________________________________________________________________ > >____________________________________________________________________ > >Email _______________________________________________________________ > >____ I have special dietary needs (describe what you DO NOT eat) >_____________ > > _______________________________________________________________ > >____ I cannot attend without scholarship assistance > > Estimated minimum stipend needed $___________ > >____ Check enclosed for $50 deposit > >____ I can offer a ride from the Twin Cities (number of seats: ____) > >____ I need a ride from the Twin Cities > >____ I need rides to and from the airport in Minneapolis > >On a scale of one (nonexistent) to five (excellent) I rank my media skills >and experience > > _____ > >Payment: Please make checks payable to the Michael Fields Agricultural >Institute. Mail completed applications and deposit to Kat Griffith, 2122 >Kendall Ave, Madison WI 53705. Call Kat at 608/233-5029 or email >KBGRIFFI@FACSTAFF.WISC.EDU for further information. > >Note: All registrants will receive an information packet with maps and >additional information at least one week prior to the workshop. > > >COMMENTS FROM PREVIOUS WORKSHOP ATTENDEES > >“This was incredibly useful! One of the best hands-on ... trainings I’ve >attended in a long time. I’ll definitely be using it back home.” > >"What a productive use of two days! At the media training we went beyond >talking about what is ‘newsworthy’ to learning how to make information >‘newsworthy’. And then we went beyond talking about hypothetical >situations to getting some practical experience -- actually writing news >releases, creating public service announcements, recording 30 second radio >news spots and playing interviewee on camera. I learned skills that I was >able to use right away when I returned home." > >“The training was worth every second. My enthusiasm for doing effective >media work has not diminished even now, 3 months later.” > >“Our media work had been haphazard and hit and miss. This workshop was >extremely valuable in making me more productive with the time I spend on >media and communications work.” > > >Katherine (Kat) Griffith >Communications Coordinator >Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial >U.W. Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems and >Michael Fields Agricultural Institute >Mail address: CIAS, 1450 Linden Drive, Rm. 146, Madison, WI 53706 (best for >campus mail; otherwise I prefer to receive mail directly at my home) >Home address: 2122 Kendall Ave, Madison, WI 53705 tel. (608)233-5029 > Katherine (Kat) Griffith Communications Coordinator Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial U.W. Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems and Michael Fields Agricultural Institute Mail address: CIAS, 1450 Linden Drive, Rm. 146, Madison, WI 53706 (best for campus mail; otherwise I prefer to receive mail directly at my home) Home address: 2122 Kendall Ave, Madison, WI 53705 tel. (608)233-5029 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 15 15:13:14 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA12980; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA28140; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id OAA18732 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:49:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id OAA18728 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (root@franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id OAA03693 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from danr237.ucdavis.edu (danr237.ucdavis.edu [128.120.215.237]) by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.8.7/UCD3.11.19) with SMTP id LAA25720; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710151849.LAA25720@franc.ucdavis.edu> X-Sender: szhalprn@peseta.ucdavis.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Lyra Halprin Subject: New Internet Book Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 162 Internet Guide for Farmers, Extension Agents [Book excerpts on UC SAREP's Web site: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu ] Farmers have joined business people and researchers worldwide in using the Internet, but are they finding the information they need for their farms? The University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP) has a new book to help them. "How to Find Agricultural Information on the Internet" shows farmers, ranchers, Extension agents, consultants and gardeners the basics of choosing an Internet provider, figuring costs, using electronic mail, getting answers from e-mail discussion groups, searching the World Wide Web for practical information, finding graphics on the Web, and copying information from the 'Net for their own use. "Farmers are going beyond using computers just for bookkeeping," says Jill Shore Auburn, SAREP associate director and editor of the book by Mark Campidonica. "But many of them are unsure of the methods used to get good information off the Internet, and need basic 'how to do it' details. Our book does just that." Auburn says the new book is aimed at both beginning and intermediate Internet users, and walks readers through real-life examples of farmers looking for and copying information, posting questions to international user groups, and shows a university scientist answering client questions. Although it is aimed at the agricultural community, the book offers plenty of good beginning Internet information and is useful for anyone who wants to "log on." A recent USDA survey shows that more than 2 million computers are in use on farms of all sizes in the U.S., with 13 percent having access to the Internet. In California, 23 percent of the state's farmers have access to the Internet, almost twice the national average (highest: 31 percent, New Jersey; lowest: 4 percent, Louisiana and Mississippi). Purchase the book through University of California DANR Communication Services, 6701 San Pablo Ave., Oakland, CA 94608-1239 for $12 (add $3 handling + $0.99 Calif. tax). Checks payable to UC Regents. VISA, MasterCard or purchase orders: (800) 994-8849, (510) 642-2431; FAX: (510) 643-5470. [Excerpts on the SAREP Web Site: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu ] _______________________________________________ Lyra Halprin, Public Information Officer University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program (UC SAREP) Davis, CA 95616 Voice: (916) 752-8664 FAX: (916) 754-8550 lhalprin@ucdavis.edu Award Winning Web Site: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu [Note: After Nov. 1, 1997, area code will change to 530] To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 15 15:54:39 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA14273; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA10996; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id PAA08849 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id PAA08787 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id PAA05689 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA06540; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:25:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:25:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" X-Sender: san@cliff To: sanet-mg Subject: Sustainable Farming Systems JOB Announcement Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 163 This job announcement is also available on the WWW at http://www.ars.usda.gov/afm/hrd/d8b-014.htm It is my understanding that ANY QUALIFIED person MAY APPLY for the job, EVEN GIVEN the several statements about surplus and displaced federal employees, AND DESPITE the statement that only federal employees may apply (in the WWW version of this announcement). Please note contact information at the end of this announcement. Andy Clark USDA RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Position Title: Agronomist Series/Grade: GS-0471-9/11 Promotion Potential: GS-11 Salary: $31,680 - $49,831 per annum Type of Appointment: Permanent Full Time Location of Position: Soil-Microbial Systems Lab, Natural Resources Institute, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Beltsville, Maryland Announcement Number: ARS-D8B-0014 Opening Date: October 14, 1997 Closing Date: November 3, 1997 Area of Consideration: All U.S. Citizens APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED FROM USDA SURPLUS EMPLOYEES IN THE COMMUTING AREA. APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED FROM USDA SURPLUS AND FEDERAL DISPLACED EMPLOYEES IN THE COMMUTING AREA. APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED FROM ALL ARS SURPLUS EMPLOYEES--NATIONWIDE. DUTIES: The incumbent serves as Field Manager of a long-term Farming Systems Project (FSP). This project, a part of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Sustainable Agriculture Program, is a multi-disciplinary program that seeks to identify and solve biological and social constraints to the sustainable production agronomic crops in the Middle Atlantic states; studies methods to improve field and production with cultural and non-chemical weed, insect, and disease control strategies; develops, extends, and stimulates the use of research information to improve the viability of farms, while sustaining long-term agricultural productivity and enhancing environmental quality. The incumbent is responsible for varied duties necessary to the planning, establishment and maintenance of field crop production systems on research plots and surrounding areas to ensure consistency with scientific goals of the FSP. These duties include planning and implementing field operations in crop rotations, including planting, irrigation, cultivation, nutrient and pest management using cultural, non-chemical and conventional methods, collection and processing of soil and plant samples, and harvest of various crops in the experimental plots and surrounding areas; maintaining an accurate, organized history of field-related operations and practices and daily observations on field crop ecology related to plant health and development, insect and other pest infestations; participating in project planning, including experimental design, budget planning, analysis of program needs, and prioritizing acquisition of equipment and facility updates for the research site. The incumbent plans, directs, and assists in field operations and data collection, establishes work priorities, and exercises independent judgement in the daily resolution of situations in accordance with FSP research objectives. QUALIFICATIONS: Successful completion of a full 4-year course of study in an accredited college or university leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in agronomy or a related discipline of science that included at least 30 semester hours of course work in the basic plant sciences, including at least 15 semester hours in agronomic subjects, such as thos dealing with plant breeding, crop production, and soil and crop management, OR course work equivalent to a major as stated above plus appropriate experience or additional education. In addition to the basic requirements, applicants for this position must have 1 year of specialized experience at least equivalent to the next lower grade in Federal service. Certain education may be substituted for experience. Specialized experience is experience that equipped the applicant with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform successfully the duties of the position. 1. Knowledge of the scientific principles, methods, and procedures of agronomy as applied in the production, management, and utilization of field crops. 2. Knowledge of cultural practices for field crops in rotation; from land preparation through harvest and residue incorporation. 3. Skill in the operation of agricultural and composting equipment, including maintenance, adjustment, and modification. APPLICANTS WILL BE EVALUATED AGAINST THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES (KSA'S) ABOVE IN TERMS OF THEIR EDUCATION, WORK EXPERIENCE, AND PERRFORMANCE RATINGS. APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT A SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO EACH FACTOR.Selective Placement Factors: The following factors will determine who meets the minimum qualifications. Applicants MUST submit a specific response to each factor. 1. Skill in computer operations in order to record and maintain schedules, field observations, production records, and field operations, using spreadsheet and forms management software. 2. Knowledge of non-chemical weed, insect, and disease control strategies used for field crops. APPLICATION INFORMATION HOW TO APPLY: Send a resume, curriculum vitae, SF-171, or Optional Application for Federal Employment, OF-612, to the Contact address. The following information is needed to evaluate applicant qualifications and to determine if applicants meet legal requirements for Federal employment: Announcement number, title, and grade(s) Full name, mailing address (including zip code) and day and evening phone numbers (with area code) Social security number Highest Federal civilian grade held Highest education level achieved. Specify: - Name, city, state, zip code (if known) - Date or expected date (month/year) of completion of degree requirements - Type of degree received - Graduates of foreign universities must include proof of foreign education equivalency to an accredited U.S. college/university Copy of college transcripts or list of college courses (if required under QUALIFICATIONS or if applicable to the position). Paid and nonpaid work experience related to the position. For each work experience include: - Job title - Series/grade (if Federal employment) - Duties and accomplishments - Employer's name and address - Supervisor's name and address - Starting and ending dates - Hours per week - Salary - Indicate if we may contact current supervisor/employer Job-related: - Training courses (title and year) - Skills (e.g., other languages, typing speed, computer software/hardware, tools, etc.) - Certificates/licenses (current) - Honors, awards, and special accomplishments Applicants will be evaluated based on the quality and extent of their experience, education, and accomplishments. This may include factors such as number of credits in directly related subjects, grade point average, relatedness of work experience, and any other evidence of ability to do the work of the position. For current and former Federal employees, the performance evaluation may also be taken into consideration. Please be sure that your application or resume contains all of the information we need to determine if you are well qualified. Relocation Expenses: [ ] may be authorized. [ X ] will not be authorized. USDA surplus/Federal displaced employees must submit documentary evidence of eligibility. Well qualified surplus and displaced employees within the local commuting area will receive selection priority as provided by OPM regulations. Applicants must submit the following: - a copy of their RIF Separation Notice (for displaced employees) OR Certification of Expected Separation or other documentation identifying you as surplus; - evidence of full performance level of current position; - a copy of their most recent performance appraisal; and - a copy of their most recent SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action, to verify reassignment eligibility. Current Federal employees must submit their most recent performance appraisal. Applicants with Federal reinstatement eligibility should submit an SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action, documenting competitive eligibility. If applications do not contain all of the requested information, applicants may lose consideration for the job. If applicants make a false statement in any part of their application, they may not be hired; may be fired after they begin work; or may be fined or jailed. Applicants will not be notified of the status of their application until a final selection has been made Applications submitted via Government envelopes, Government FAX machines, or electronic mail will not be accepted. APPLICATIONS MUST BE [ ] POSTMARKED [ X ] RECEIVED BY THE CLOSING DATE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT. SPECIAL HIRING AUTHORITIES: Special hiring authorities may apply to disabled individuals, former Peace Corps, Vista, action cooperatives, volunteers, VRA eligibles, and 30 percent disabled veterans. CONTACT: For application forms, write to, visit or call: CONTACT:For application forms, write to, visit or call: USDA, Agricultural Research Service BAHQOB/Human Resources Division 6305 Ivy Lane, Rm. 361 Greenbelt, MD 20770 301-344-4638 Submit applications to: Address Above Mary Byrd 301-344-2945 (specific questions) DIAL-A-VACANCY: 301-344-2288 DC RELAY SERVICE: 202-855-1234 (TDD) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 15 17:26:08 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA15837; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA09358; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id QAA04865 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id QAA04814 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id QAA08806 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09334; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:58:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:58:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" X-Sender: san@cliff To: sanet-mg cc: lachance@vt.edu, Rosanne Minarovic Subject: "Farm Diversification: From Planning to Profit" Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 164 This conference is part of the SARE Professional Development Program, which "provides sustainable agriculture education and outreach strategies for Cooperative Extension System agents, Natural Resources Conservation Service staff and others who work directly with farmers and ranchers." Contact information is below. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:59:36 -0700 From: Rosanne Minarovic To: san@nal.usda.gov Subject: Event Announcement Event "Farm Diversification: From Planning to Profit" will be presented December 12-13, 1997, in Natural Bridge, Virginia. The conference explores the profitable integration of alternative enterprises into sustainable farming systems. Principal speakers include Allan Nation (The Stockman Grassland Farmer), Joel Salatin (Pature Poultry $), and Dr. Charlie Coale (To market . . To market . . Developing a Marketing Plan). Allan Nation will present a grazing pre-conference on December 11. For further information, contact Michael Lachance, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Nelson County, PO Box 298, Livingston, VA 22949-0298, (804) 263-4035, email lachance@vt.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 15 17:39:36 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA15992; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:39:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA12894; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:34:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA16096 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA15981 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x10.boston.juno.com (x10.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.25]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA09802 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:16:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from dan.worley@juno.com) by x10.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id QTT17862; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:53:24 EDT To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:53:00 AST Subject: Richard Wolfson : Appeal from Bio Safety Meeting Message-ID: <19971015.165354.4039.1.DAN.WORLEY@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-8,10-15,17-19,21-22,24-36,38-39,41,43-60,62-63, 65-66,68,70-72,74-100 From: dan.worley@juno.com (Daniel D. Worley) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 165 --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Wolfson To: info@natural-law.ca Subject: Appeal from Bio Safety Meeting Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:45:14 -0400 Message-ID: Global Days of Action Against Genetic Engineering Press Release 13/10/97 For immediate use Genetically Engineered Soya has Elevated Hormone Levels: Public Health Threat International Scientists Appeal To Governments World-Wide Today, an urgent appeal has been made by scientists from around the world attending the Third Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on Biosafety of The UN-Convention on Biological Diversity (13-17 October) in Canada. The scientists implored "all governments to use whatever methods available to them to bar from their markets, on grounds of injury to public health, Monsanto's genetically manipulated (GM) [herbicide-resistant] Roundup-Ready (RR) soybean." New findings indicate that EU member nations should immediately invoke Article 16, the safeguard clause of Directive 90/220, banning the soya on the grounds of specific health risks. Dramatic scientific evidence has revealed that the application of glyphosate (such as the herbicide Roundup) increased the level of plant estrogens of bean crops. Plant estrogens are known to affect mammals including humans. The signatories to the appeal, including Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher, UK Geneticist, stated: "Young children are especially susceptible to elevated levels of estrogen. Thus there is a clear and serious health issue at hand." Further alarming evidence has now been released concerning the GM soybeans, hitherto ruled as been substantially equivalent to ordinary soybeans and safe for introduction into our food supply: Cows fed with the RR-soybeans were found to produce milk with significantly higher fat content than those fed with ordinary soybeans. The scientists concluded this to be direct proof of a substantial difference between the GM- and ordinary soybeans. Monsanto's application for market approval of the RR-soybean provided no data on estrogen levels of RR-soybeans sprayed with glyphosate. Indeed, all data provided on the concentration levels of different compound was derived from unsprayed beans! Scientific advisor to the UK Genetic Engineering Network commented on the findings: "It is horrifying that Roundup-Ready soya was released into our food chain with such insufficient data, especially as such as large proportion [60%] of supermarket products contain soya derivatives.... The lack of independent, full investigations prior to the approval of these genetically manipulated soybeans is illustrative of the US biotechnology industry's strangle-hold on the regulatory bodies entrusted with our food safety." Further reports also presented at the Meeting, include the latest evidence of the detrimental environmental and agricultural impact of Novartis (formerly Ciba) insect resistant maize prematurely approved by the European Commission for marketing and cultivation (23 January 1997). The report calls for an urgent "moratorium for transgenic insect resistant plants" and details the evidence supporting legal action, which has been filed against the USA Environmental Protection Agency over its approvals by over 30 scientific, environmental and agricultural groups. The Meeting coincides with the Global Days of Action Against Genetic Engineering (2-16 October). For further information or interviews, contact the Genetic Engineering Network in London at: 0181 374 9516 _________________________________________________________ Richard Wolfson, PhD Campaign for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods Natural Law Party, 500 Wilbrod Street Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2 Tel. 613-565-8517 Fax. 613-565-1596 email: rwolfson@concentric.net Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html contains more information on genetic engineering. To receive regular news on genetic engineering and this campaign, please send an email message with 'subscribe GE' in the subject line to rwolfson@concentric.net To unsubscribe, please send the message 'unsubscribe GE' __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ --------- End forwarded message ---------- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 15 17:53:48 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.cearch.org [152.2.254.84]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA16077; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA16612; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA23523 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA23474 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from potato.cfarm.com (potato.cfarm.com [204.57.204.30]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA10064 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by potato.cfarm.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) id <4795KYJ9>; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:28:08 -0700 Message-ID: <0B3BBD23B506D11196AE00609704120103E371@potato.cfarm.com> From: "McERLICH, ALEC" To: "'Sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Organic agriculture Video Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:28:04 -0700 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 166 I am looking for a 15 minute video on organic agriculture production techniques. The video will be used to provide an overview of the techniques used in organic agriculture to a non technical audience. I would appreciate any recommendations. Thanks Alec McErlich To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Wed Oct 15 21:08:22 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA17978; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA04363; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id UAA01230 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:49:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id UAA01224 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from blue.georgian.net (root@blue.georgian.net [204.101.160.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id UAA16242 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:48:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [206.172.13.61] (organix.georgian.net [206.172.13.61]) by blue.georgian.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA14315 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:44:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: organix@mail.georgian.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: organix@georgian.net (Tomas L. Nimmo) Subject: CSA discussion group, anyone? Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 167 Hello: I've been looking all over the map to find a Community Shared Agriculture (CSA) discussion forum. No success. Can someone point me in the right direction? I need to do some detailed research and would appreciate locating this discussion forum. Tomas Nimmo (705) 444-0923 * FAX: 444-0380 * E-Mail: organix@georgian.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From london@sunsite.unc.edu Wed Oct 15 23:46:27 1997 Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA19285; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:46:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA12407; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:41:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:41:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: "Tomas L. Nimmo" cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: CSA discussion group, anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 168 The Prairienet ListProcessor (listproc@prairienet.org) To subscribe send email to listproc@prairienet.org Inthe body of your message type: subscribe csa-l 's] To post messages to the list send them to csa-l@prairienet.org Only subscribers can post to the list; you'll need to post using the email ID that you subscribed with. The list's owners are xx206@prairienet.org and milstein@pipeline.com You should contact them if there are any problems. Please do not send requests to this list; instead direct them to: listproc@prairienet.org To get more information on how to use this service, please send the command HELP in a line by itself in a mail message to listproc@prairienet.org. To signoff from the list, send email to listproc@prairienet.org with the following request: signoff CSA-L or unsubscribe CSA-L From dmhinds@acnet.net Thu Oct 16 00:13:39 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.gigabit-ethernet.org [152.2.254.82]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA19410 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA20418 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:08:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.45]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id XAA09198; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:15:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <34458EE7.755E@acnet.net> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:49:59 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." CC: Erorganic@aol.com, dhinds@ucol.mx, sals@rain.org, Sprinkraft@aol.com, cvof@iquest.net, wfof@ptel.net, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, cooperative-bus@relay.doit.wisc.edu Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by luna.oit.unc.edu id AAA19410 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 169 Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > Erorganic writes: > > > Personally, I think I can feel at ease with OFPA because I believe "the > > buying public" owns the word "organic", the right to know they are getting > > what they are paying for. In fact, to be consistent I think "the buying > > public" owns all advertisements and identities. When someone does not meet > > "the public's" perception for a word used in commerce, "the public" has a right > > through their agencies to regulate the identity or advertisement. 6 lines, with 4 references to "the buying public´s" right to sic the US Federal Goverment's watchdog powers on someone who may have used a word accurately and truthfully in relation to an agricultural product they chose to grow in adherance with international organic standards (that SHOULD be subject and ONLY subject to a legal definition). Below, the writer's purpose is clearly expressed: To control trade. The obvious question is, to who's benefit? Does Erorganic (that's "the public's" word he's got sandwiched in there) stand to benefit? You bet he does, because at some point (watch real close, because the change is fast and rather slickly done), "the buying public", the one that "owns" the word and has the big, mean but very useful to certain interests watchdog, becomes - you guessed it, the same guy that wants you to sell your organic produce through HIS channel, the inside track that just happens to meet these proprietory standards belonging to "the buying public". Words are founded in meaning and their rightful owners are those that use them truthfully. The rest of it is self serving, sophistic garbage (not all of you will appreciate the value of calling a spade a spade or a manipulator a manipulator) and while I frankly have no desire to continue this fruitless line of discussion, I feel it's imperative to illuminate what's really at stake here. The line may sound so pretty that it almost makes you want to become "selfless", "public" and "regulated" yourself. But it's just soul-less, a rigged game of musical chairs where you're sure to lose the seat you came in with, if you fall for it. I say let the buyer beware, especially of con artists in organic regulating sheepskins. > > Such is the Constitution of the US, the Commerce Clause. All the levels of > > US government have the power in various situations, under the Constitution or > > other laws, to control trade in the US. As I pointed out before, if > > Constitutional government does not create checks and balances through > > regulations, etc, the small entities of the US would be at a great > > disadvantage. The buying public is included in the small entity category. So > > are small to moderate size organic farmers and organic businesses. OFPA > > protects them while protecting the public. > > Well said & thoughtful, Eric. Great input to the discussion, and a good > pitch for OFMA. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden - Venaura Farm > mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net > owner organic-certification mailing list > http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden > -------------------------------------------------------------- -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 16 00:33:17 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA19553; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA25143; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:28:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id AAA10947 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id AAA10887 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id AAA22288 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home.ipnet ([167.114.21.45]) by mailmtx.acnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id XAA09198; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:15:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <34458EE7.755E@acnet.net> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:49:59 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds Reply-To: dhinds@ucol.mx Organization: Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." CC: Erorganic@aol.com, dhinds@ucol.mx, sals@rain.org, Sprinkraft@aol.com, cvof@iquest.net, wfof@ptel.net, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, cooperative-bus@relay.doit.wisc.edu Subject: Re: SMALLFARM-MG> Organic Produce References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by luna.oit.unc.edu id AAA19553 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 170 Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote: > > Erorganic writes: > > > Personally, I think I can feel at ease with OFPA because I believe "the > > buying public" owns the word "organic", the right to know they are getting > > what they are paying for. In fact, to be consistent I think "the buying > > public" owns all advertisements and identities. When someone does not meet > > "the public's" perception for a word used in commerce, "the public" has a right > > through their agencies to regulate the identity or advertisement. 6 lines, with 4 references to "the buying public´s" right to sic the US Federal Goverment's watchdog powers on someone who may have used a word accurately and truthfully in relation to an agricultural product they chose to grow in adherance with international organic standards (that SHOULD be subject and ONLY subject to a legal definition). Below, the writer's purpose is clearly expressed: To control trade. The obvious question is, to who's benefit? Does Erorganic (that's "the public's" word he's got sandwiched in there) stand to benefit? You bet he does, because at some point (watch real close, because the change is fast and rather slickly done), "the buying public", the one that "owns" the word and has the big, mean but very useful to certain interests watchdog, becomes - you guessed it, the same guy that wants you to sell your organic produce through HIS channel, the inside track that just happens to meet these proprietory standards belonging to "the buying public". Words are founded in meaning and their rightful owners are those that use them truthfully. The rest of it is self serving, sophistic garbage (not all of you will appreciate the value of calling a spade a spade or a manipulator a manipulator) and while I frankly have no desire to continue this fruitless line of discussion, I feel it's imperative to illuminate what's really at stake here. The line may sound so pretty that it almost makes you want to become "selfless", "public" and "regulated" yourself. But it's just soul-less, a rigged game of musical chairs where you're sure to lose the seat you came in with, if you fall for it. I say let the buyer beware, especially of con artists in organic regulating sheepskins. > > Such is the Constitution of the US, the Commerce Clause. All the levels of > > US government have the power in various situations, under the Constitution or > > other laws, to control trade in the US. As I pointed out before, if > > Constitutional government does not create checks and balances through > > regulations, etc, the small entities of the US would be at a great > > disadvantage. The buying public is included in the small entity category. So > > are small to moderate size organic farmers and organic businesses. OFPA > > protects them while protecting the public. > > Well said & thoughtful, Eric. Great input to the discussion, and a good > pitch for OFMA. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Lawrence F. London, Jr. - InterGarden - Venaura Farm > mailto:london@sunSITE.unc.edu - mailto:llondon@bellsouth.net > owner organic-certification mailing list > http://sunSITE.unc.edu/InterGarden > -------------------------------------------------------------- -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 16 01:55:48 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA20613; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 01:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA11623; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 01:50:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id BAA02614 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 01:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id BAA02606 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 01:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acme.sb.west.net (root@acme.sb.west.net [205.254.224.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id BAA25189 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 01:36:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [205.254.241.98] (term4-2.vta.west.net [205.254.241.98]) by acme.sb.west.net (8.8.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04253 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:36:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: colibri@mail.west.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: Beth von Gunten Subject: Re: CSA discussion group, anyone? Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 171 >Hello: I've been looking all over the map to find a Community Shared >Agriculture (CSA) discussion forum. No success. > >Can someone point me in the right direction? I need to do some detailed >research and would appreciate locating this discussion forum. > >Tomas Nimmo >(705) 444-0923 * FAX: 444-0380 * E-Mail: organix@georgian.net Hi Tomas. Hope this helps. (To subscribe, see #2 below.) Beth von Gunten colibri@west.net ============================================================ This mailing list is offered as a free public service by Prairienet, a non-profit, member-supported community network. Prairienet is a community service of the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. [http://www.prairienet.org/] If you would like to help support community mailing lists on Prairienet, your check made out to "UIF/Prairienet" may be sent to: Prairienet, c/o UI Foundation, P.O. Box 3429, Champaign, IL 61826. Thank you for your support. ============================================================ Welcome to the CSA-L networking list on Community Supported Agriculture. Below is a list of common questions on the list. Please read this before posting to the list. You are encouraged to post a short biography about yourself to the entire list to introduce yourself. John Barclay, list manager, Champaign, IL --------------------------------------------------------- Frequently Asked Questions for CSA-L Networking List (available at http://www.prairienet.org/pcsa/csa-l.html) 1. What is CSA-L? 2. What is Community Supported Agriculture? 3. How do I subscribe to CSA-L? 4. How do I unsubscribe to CSA-L? 5. What is appropriate to post to CSA-L? 6. How do I post to CSA-L? 7. Who subscribes to CSA-L? 8. Where can I find archives of CSA-L? 9. How can I find a CSA where I live? 10. What are some useful CSA organizations? 11. What are some good books, articles, and videos of CSA? 12. What are some CSA Resources on the World Wide Web. ******************************************************* 1. WHAT IS CSA-L? The e-mail list "CSA-L@prairienet.org" is for networking on Community Supported Agriculture. We hope to see discussions on goals, distribution styles, outreach tools, member retention, educational work, connections with non-CSA organizations, etc. We also would like to see the exchange of newsletter articles and information about resources on CSA such as networking organizations, books, journals, videos, audio tapes from conferences, speaker tours of interest to CSAs, etc. In short, we would like to take advantage of the collective knowledge of as many CSA's as possible to help the CSA movement grow and strengthen! The listowners are John Barclay (jbarclay@prairienet.org) of Prairieland CSA in Champaign, Illinois and Sarah Milstein (milstein@pipeline.com) of Just Food in New York, New York. ******************************************************* 2. What is Community Supported Agricutlure Community Supported Agriculture is a partnership between farmers and consumers. In CSA, consumers buy products directly from the farm, and pay for them in advance. Farmers do their best to produce sufficient quantity and quality of fresh, nutritious food for their customers' needs and palates. In some CSAs, people pay in advance to support a farm for a season. In return, these 'shareholders' or 'sharers' receive a share of whatever the farm has ready to harvest each week. In other CSAs, also called subscription farms, people subscribe to a share of a given value, prepaying monthly or quarterly. Although the size of subscription shares don't change throughout the year, the content varies with the season. CSA gives non-farmers a chance to get more involved in producing and distributing their own food. Farms sponsor tours, workdays, and even 'workshares' to bring shareholders out to the farm. CSAs also often ask shareholders to help deliver shares, sponsor drop-off sites, manage shareholder lists, write newsletters, and more ******************************************************* 2. HOW DO I SUBSCRIBE TO CSA-L? Send a message to "listproc@prairienet.org" with "subscribe CSA-L Firstname Lastname" in the message. Put your first and last names in place of Firstname and Lastname and omit the quotes. You may leave the subject line blank. ******************************************************* 3. HOW DO I UNSUBSCRIBE TO CSA-L? Send a message to "listproc@prairienet.org" with "unsubscribe CSA-L" in the message. Omit the quotes. You may leave the subject line blank. If this doesn't work, send an e-mail to jbarclay@prairienet.org and I will unsubscribe you. ******************************************************* 4. WHAT IS APPROPRIATE TO POST TO CSA-L? All messages should meet the following criteria: -> Messages should be related to the purpose of the list. -> Messages should have a clear subject heading. -> Messages between individuals should not go to the entire list unless the information in them may be of interest to the list. -> Messages should include a good signature which includes your name, any organization that you represent, and where you are located geographically. -> Questions that are answered in the Frequently Asked Questions Postings (FAQs) should be avoided. These guidelines are to improve the quality and effectiveness of the list as a networking tool. As the number of subscribers to the list grows, the success of the list will depend on the quality of our postings. ******************************************************* 5. HOW DO I POST TO CSA-L? To post a message to the whole list, send it to CSA-L@prairienet.org In order to post to CSA-L, you must be subscribed to the list and send the message from the account name that you are subscribed on. In other words, If you have several e-mail accounts or aliases, you need to send e-mail from the account you subscribed from. ******************************************************* 6. WHO SUBSCRIBES TO CSA-L? Over 200 farmers, CSA members, students studying CSA, and other interested parties from around the world. To get a list of the subscribers send a message to "listproc@prairienet.org" with "recipients CSA-L" in the body and a current list will be sent to you. Some subscriber biographies are available on the CSA-L web page. ******************************************************* 7. WHERE CAN I FIND ARCHIVES OF POSTINGS TO CSA-L? On the world wide web at: http://csf.colorado.edu/sustainability/plants/csa/ ******************************************************* 8. HOW CAN I FIND A CSA WHERE I LIVE? Call the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association toll-free CSA/BDA Consumer Hot Line (1-800-516-7797) to request a free list of the CSA/BDA farms and/or gardens in your state. CSA West is a resource for finding CSAs on the west coast of the U.S., especially California. (408/459-3964). ******************************************************* 9. WHAT ARE SOME USEFUL NATIONAL AND REGIONAL RESOURCE ORGANIZATIONS ON CSA? CSA OF NORTH AMERICA (CSANA), founded by the recently deceased Robyn Van En, will be one of the lead organizations in the Northeast CSA Conference, scheduled for January 1998. Tel: 413.528.4374. http://www.umass.edu./umext/CSA THE BIODYNAMIC FARMING AND GARDENING ASSOCIATION, Inc. is a major promoter of CSA in North America, especially in the Northeast. Located in Kimberton, PA, the Association publishes a bi-monthly newsletter, sponsors a CSA conference every winter and maintains a large and remarkably comprehensive database of established CSAs in North America. On request, the Association will provide a list of CSAs for any given area. They also sell Louise's Leaves. They can be reached at 1.800.516.7797 or PO Box 550, Kimberton, PA 19442. http://www.biodynamics.com/. EQUITY TRUST, INC. is a community development organization that has created a revolving-loan fund for CSAs to acquire and develop agricultural land with appropriate conservation easements and/or other tenure arrangements that serve both farmers and communities. Their Fund for Conservation and Community Supported Agriculture allows investors to make unusually safe, flexible financial investments that support progressive social change. Equity Trust also provides technical assistance and advises CSAs on lend tenure issues. Equity Trust can be reached at 539 Beach Pond Road, Voluntown, CT 06384. Tel: 860.376.6174. JUST FOOD. Just Food is building connections between urban communities and regional small farms. During the 1996-97 season, we were instrumental in enabling six new CSAs to begin delivery in New York City. For the 1997-98 season, Just Food will be focusing on low-income residents' access to CSA. We are not a core group, BUT WE ARE HERE FOR YOU, AND WE CAN HELP YOUR CSA TAKE ROOT AND GROW IN THE CITY. Contact Sarah Milstein or Kathy Lawrence, at any point & with any questions: 290 Riverside Drive, #15D, New York, NY 10025-5287; Tel: 212/666.2168; Fax: 212.531.4849; Email: milstein@pipeline.com CSA WEST. CSA West was founded to expand the CSA movement by offering regional information to farmers, prospective and current CSA members, the media, student/interns, and related non-profit organizations. CSA projects are very much the product of a grassroots movement, where farmers and other CSA organizers swap information among themselves. We strive to expand this exchange of new ideas, tried-and-true practices, and helpful tips on running CSAs among new, old, and potential participants in the western United States. csawest@caff.org. 916-756-8518, extension 27; fax: 916-756-7857 US mail: CAFF, PO Box 363, Davis, CA 95617. http://www.caff.org/caff/programs/ MADISON AREA CSA COALITION (MACSAC) maintains an updated directory of CSA farms serving the Madison, WI area and sponsor several CSA-related events each year, including a CSA Farm Fair in March, farm tours during the summer, and conferences and grower workshops in the fall and winter. We also have ongoing regular meetings which are open to the public. Karen Foley-Stauss c/o Wisconsin Rural Development Center, 125 Brookwood Dr., Mt. Horeb, WI 53572, 608/437-5971. ******************************************************* 10. WHAT ARE SOME GOOD BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND VIDEOS OF CSA? FARMS OF TOMORROW: COMMUNITY SUPPORTED FARMS, FARM SUPPORTED COMMUNITIES, by Trauger Groh and Steven McFadden. Although published in 1990 -- only five years into the CSA movement in this country -- the book is still relevant today. With a section on the troubled relationship between modern agriculture, environment, people and food, plus profiles of seven CSAs that are beginning to address these problems, it's a very readable and useful work. Farms of Tomorrow is available from the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association (see above). A new version will be published later this year. COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE. . . MAKING THE CONNECTION. A 1995 HANDBOOK FOR PRODUCERS. Presented by University of California Cooperative Extension Placer County and Small Farm Center, UC Davis. 198 pages ** binder format. MAKING THE CONNECTION pulls together the experience of many innovative projects. While describing the diversity of CSA, this handbook for producers also addresses common questions and concerns including: What is CSA?, Developing a CSA, Finding and keeping members, Production for CSA, Managing the shares. $25. Contact UC Cooperative Extension at 916-889-7385 for ordering information or on the CSA-L web page or e-mail ceplacer@ucdavis.edu. THE NORTHEAST REGIONAL FOOD GUIDE, published by cornell coop extension, has excellent information and tips On eating local, seasonal produce. To order, call 607.255.2080. GROWING FOR MARKET is a monthly newsletter that has articles by and about CSA farmers. Good ideas and honest discussion abound. Subscriptions are $27/year. Gfm, fairplain publications, P.O. box 3747, Lawrence, KS 66046; Tel/fax: 913.841.2559. ******************************************************* 11. What are some CSA Resources on the World Wide Web. Links to all the web sites I can find related to CSAs can be found at: http://www.prairienet.org/pcsa/CSA-L.html To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 16 09:05:05 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA23771; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA01559; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:00:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id IAA14668 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:42:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id IAA14645 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cliff.nal.usda.gov (cliff.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id IAA07396 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cliff.nal.usda.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA20070; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:42:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:42:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andy Clark, SAN Coordinator" X-Sender: san@cliff To: sanet-mg cc: Nadean Bienvenu Subject: JOB: Dean of the College of Applied Life Sciences Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 172 POSITION: Dean of the College of Applied Life Sciences, University of Southwestern Louisiana RESPONSIBILITIES: The Dean is the chief academic officer of the College and reports directly to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Dean is responsible for the quality and economic viability of educational programs within the College and will assist departments in the planning, staffing, and administration of the undergraduate and graduate programs. The Dean will provide management and leadership, enhance research programs, and obtain external funding. The Dean will represent the College at the local, state and national levels. QUALIFICATIONS: The applicant must have a terminal degree (doctorate) in a discipline relevant to the College and its mission to foster sustainability. Teaching and administrative experience, solid research background with professional recognition, familiarity with disciplines represented by both Departments of the College, and involvement in professional organizations are strongly desired. An understanding of current sustainability issues (within both social and environmental systems) is essential. The applicant must possess vision, foster collegiality, and communicate effectively at all levels of the educational process. ADMINISTRATIVE The University of Southwestern Louisiana is located in Lafayette, Louisiana, one of the UNIT: fastest growing metropolitan areas in the nation, with a present population of 109,957. The University is one of nine publicly supported universities governed by the University of Louisiana System. The University's approximately 17,000 students are offered undergraduate degrees in 39 disciplines, the master's degree in 27 disciplines, and the doctorate in 7 disciplines. The College of Applied Life Sciences consists of the School of Human Resources, the Department of Renewable Resources, and the Renewable Resources Auxiliary Units. The School of Human Resources has a faculty of 11 with 700 majors in the degree programs of Hospitality Management, Dietetics, Apparel Design and Merchandising, Child and Family Studies, and Home Economics Education. The department is accredited by AAFCS and ADA with laboratory accreditation by NAEYC. Accreditation for Hospitality Management is currently being pursued from ACPHA. There is also a Master of Science Degree available in Human Resources. The Department of Renewable Resources has a faculty of 10 with 440 majors in the degree programs of Environmental and Sustainable Resources and Sustainable Agriculture. The College is presently enhancing the sustainability of operations on its 750 acres of auxiliary properties, which will be used to further the department's mission of sustainability through teaching, research, and community service. SALARY: Competitive, depending upon qualifications and experience. STARTING DATE: Effective June 1, 1998; date of appointment can be adjusted dependent upon prior commitments. APPLICATIONS: For initial consideration, send a letter of application, a vita, and the names, addresses and telephone number of three to five references. Send all materials to: The Q-S-N Committee College of Applied Life Sciences The University of Southwestern Louisiana P.O. Box 44650 Lafayette, LA 70504 Applications by proxy will not be accepted. CLOSING DATE: December 20, 1997 or until position is filled. AA 1-96 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 16 13:24:34 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA26756; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:24:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA19631; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id MAA09456 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:58:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id MAA09402 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.clarityconnect.com (mail.clarityconnect.com [206.64.143.5]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id MAA18036 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:58:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cramer (206.114.171.17) by mail.clarityconnect.com with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.2); Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:08:16 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971016130247.00d97ba8@clarityconnect.com> X-Sender: cdcramer@clarityconnect.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:02:47 -0400 To: steved@ncatark.uark.edu From: Craig Cramer Subject: RE: Organic links Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 173 Steve: Great annotated list of links. Thanks for sharing them. We've got a couple dozen similar links of interest on our Organic Farming, Marketing, and Certification Resources links page at: http://sunsite.unc.edu/farming-connection/links/organic.htm If folks are aware of others that we should list there, please let me know. Keep up the good work and keep me posted. Craig Craig Cramer mailto:cdcramer@clarityconnect.com Sustainable Farming Connection -- "Where farmers find and share information." http://sunsite.unc.edu/farming-connection "The water will never clear up 'til you get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 16 14:29:16 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA28151; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA10803; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id OAA21830 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id OAA21776 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.berea.edu (smtp1.berea.edu [192.68.112.241]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id OAA21289 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpgtwy.berea.edu (192.68.112.243) by smtp1.berea.edu with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:03:26 -0500 Received: from ccMail by smtpgtwy.berea.edu (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) id AA877036028; Thu, 16 Oct 97 13:39:45 EST Date: Thu, 16 Oct 97 13:39:45 EST From: "Carolyn Orr" Message-Id: <9709168770.AA877036028@smtpgtwy.berea.edu> To: graze-l@Vulcan.taranaki.ac.nz Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, saed-share-l@cornell.edu, sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu, graze-l@taranaki.ac.nz Subject: Re: student exchange or work exchange programs Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 174 I too would appreciate seeing this information. i have two students going to NZ in January for 6 weeks of grazing dairy work. So why not post to the list? _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: student exchange or work exchange programs From: graze-l@Vulcan.taranaki.ac.nz at Berlink Date: 10/16/97 12:31 PM i need some contacts for international exchange programs for students and post graduates who want to travel and work. i specifically have a request from a student who wants to work in New Zealand on one or more farms for 6 to 12 months before she starts her graduate program in livestock-forage management. if anyone on these lists know of contacts for her please reply to me at the e-mail address below. thanks jim green -- Dr. James T. Green, Jr Professor & Extension Specialist, (Pasture & Forage Crops) Crop Science Department North Carolina State Univ Box 7620 Raleigh, NC 27695-7620 Phone mail: 919 515 2390 Fax: 919 515 5855 e-mail: jim_green@ncsu.edu The following is an attached File item from cc:Mail. It contains information that had to be encoded to ensure successful transmission through various mail systems. To decode the file use the UUDECODE program. --------------------------------- Cut Here --------------------------------- begin 644 RFC822.TXT M4F5C96EV960Z(&9R;VT@5G5L8V%N+G1A7!E.B!T97AT+W!L86EN.R!C:&%R M2U4;SH@9W)A>F4M;$!6=6QC86XN 0=&%R86YA:VDN86,N;GH-"@`` end To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 16 17:48:21 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (npc.press.org [152.2.254.83]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA00848; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA14308; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id RAA23418 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:19:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id RAA23369 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.missouri.edu (mail.missouri.edu [128.206.2.169]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id RAA00081 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:19:44 -0400 (EDT) From: bergman@ext.missouri.edu Received: from ext.missouri.edu (ext.missouri.edu [128.206.212.42]) by mail.missouri.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA117358 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 16:19:35 -0500 Received: from ccMail by ext.missouri.edu (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) id AA877042771; Thu, 16 Oct 97 13:51:48 cdt Date: Thu, 16 Oct 97 13:51:48 cdt Message-Id: <9709168770.AA877042771@ext.missouri.edu> To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Beef and ultrasound technology Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 175 Dear Sanet, I am working with a group of beef producers in NE Missouri who are beginning to direct market. They are seeking a means to insure (or be reasonably certain) that their meat is of 'choice' quality. THis spring, the group experimented with ultrasound of animals after they had been on feed for 60 days to learn projected grade, backfat, and ribeye area. THey would like to explore this as a tool they could learn to utlize themselves-without 'hiring in' an equipment operator. Are any of you experienced with the use of ultrasound as a means to gauge carcass quality? What extent of training is needed to insure accurate reading of ultrasound? Please note that this group is NOT making a choice claim, but wants to direct market only animals that approach those standards. Animals not on that level will be directed toward another market (sale barn, commercial feed lots, etc) Any insight you are able to offer would be appreciated. Laura Ann Bergman "Building Sustainable Communities Through Agriculture" PO Box 310 Lancaster, MO 63548 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 16 18:47:59 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (www.exploris.org [152.2.254.85]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA01423; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA01292; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id SAA05418 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id SAA05329 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:22:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from inet.htcnet.com (root@inet.htcnet.com [199.120.83.1]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with SMTP id SAA02489 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CRIS ([207.32.34.19]) by inet.htcnet.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA22786 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:22:35 -0500 Message-ID: <3446B157.68C5@hartel.net> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:29:11 -0700 From: Cris Carusi Reply-To: cecarusi@hartel.net Organization: Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet Subject: NSAS Newsletter no. 60, Fall, 1997 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 176 NEBRASKA SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY NEWSLETTER Fall 1997, Number 60 The Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society promotes an agriculture that builds healthy land, people, communities and quality of life, for present and future generations. This is an abridged version of the NSAS newsletter. If you wish to read the complete version, please visit our web site at www.netins.net/showcase/nsas NSAS is a non-profit membership organization. Annual membership costs $25, which includes a year's subscription to the NSAS newsletter. For more information about NSAS or the information in this newsletter, please contact: NSAS, PO Box 736, Hartington, NE 68739; 402-254-2289. Fax: 402-254-6930. E-mail: cecarusi@hartel.net. The NSAS newsletter is published quarterly. We welcome articles, letters, poetry and other contributions, which should be sent to the above address. Articles appearing in this newsletter may be reproduced; please credit the authors and the NSAS newsletter. This newsletter is supported in part by grants from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. In This Issue: Let the Animals Do the Harvesting Invite Some Chickens to Your Garden NSAS News Annual Meeting Set for February 28 Western Conference Announced NSAS Directory Available Dairy Graziers are Optimistic About Farming Hogs Thrive in Alternative Production System Large Farms are Thriving Let the Animals Do the Harvesting Terry Gompert, Knox County Extension Educator Today I'm not going to discuss the negative and positive points of large-scale livestock confinement. Instead, I'll try to express the excitement and the positive things that I've seen in the alternatives. Nearly all the alternatives involve using the animal as the harvester. Results are no less than fantastic! They are nearly unbelievable! Reports suggest significant profits and improved quality of life for the livestock owners. The land, soil, and the environment are protected. Consumer acceptance of the meat is high. Manure is valuable if it's in the right place! The manure produced annually per 1000 pounds of animal weight are as follows: dairy cow - 15 ton; beef feeder - 11 ton; beef cow - 11.5 ton; sheep - 7.5 ton; poultry broiler - 13 ton; and horse - 8.5 ton. For the individual who has developed a grazing system, this manure is "money in the pot." A 100 head beef cow herd will produce approximately 1150 tones of manure. The University of Nebraska has valued each ton, on a nutrient basis, at $9.57. The gross value of that manure is a whopping $11,005.50. The exciting opportunity is to capture as much of the manure as is possible. The extra bonus is that the better job you do in your grazing system, the less you have to work. I once heard someone say that before he developed a good grazing system, he was continually hauling. He harvested and hauled feed to the bins; he hauled it to the livestock; and he hauled the waste to the field. Once he let the animal do the work, time was saved, less equipment and fertilizer was needed, and the profits went up. Did you know that those who are in the business of haying or cropping are mining minerals? A ton of prairie hay, for example, contains 4 pounds of phosphorus, 22 pounds of potassium, and 2 pounds of sulfur per ton. Over time, the minerals are depleted in the soil and commercial fertilizer needs to be added. Livestock manure can also be added back to the soil, but much of the advantage is lost in hauling. A beef animal recycles mineral very efficiently. For example, 95% of the potassium ingested by an animal passes through its urine. 70 to 80% of the ingested phosphorus passes through the animal in its feces. Good grazing programs recycle nutrients. The only free lunches in agriculture are sunlight, rainfall, and minerals recycled through the grazing animal. The better we capture these three, the greater our reward. Where do I hear of the excitement? I hear it from dairy graziers, stocker and cow/calf operators, beef finishers, and buffalo producers. Pastured poultry, ducks, turkey, geese, elk, deer, pasture farrowing, and horse rearing is where I hear the excitement. I hear it from new farmers and ranchers. It takes less investment to graze. We are talking about a great opportunity when compared to confinement. Crop producers cut costs when the animal harvests the crop: no storage bins, no hauling, no "heavy metal" harvesting equipment, lower fertilizer costs, less hired labor, and more fun. The public likes to eat livestock raised in a grazing program. It seems healthy. It seems environmentally safe. It seems right. Do you see why there is excitement about the alternatives to large-scale confinement livestock production? Consider letting the animal be the harvester. Invite Some Chickens to Your Garden Thomas N. Tomas Most any size garden can benefit from a few chickens. They will root out persistent perennial weeds, eat insects, fertilize the soil, and provide eggs and meat in the bargain. All it takes is a little planning and a small investment in fencing and shelter. I keep about a dozen hens and one rooster year-round. They get regular feed plus table scraps, damaged fruit and vegetables, insects, weeds and grass clippings. We get all the eggs we need, an occasional chicken dinner, and the best compost you can imagine. To make my chicken pen, I built seven 4 x 12-foot panels out of 1 x 4-inch lumber and covered them with chicken wire. One panel has a four foot access gate built into it. I put four of the panels together to form a 12-foot square, and put the other three on top to keep the chickens in and predators out. The outside two top panels are hinged so I can lift them up to throw in grass clippings, leaves, or garden waste for bedding. Feeders hang from a pipe across the pen, and fresh water is available at all times. For a coop, I use an old pickup camper shell, complete with roost and nest boxes, next to the pen. The whole setup can be taken apart and moved to a new location without too much trouble. Over the summer, about a foot of compost accumulates in the pen. In the fall, I move the pen to a new location and apply the compost to the garden. By spring, another foot of compost has built up in the new location and it is time to move again. By adding grass clippings in the spring and leaves, straw or hay in the winter, fly and odor problems are kept down and the proper carbon to nitrogen ratio is maintained for good composting. The chickens do the turning and mixing of the compost, as well as providing the nitrogen. In the spring, I may allow two or three of the hens to set on a clutch of eggs and hatch out some chicks. The grandchildren really like to watch the whole process from the time the hens are starting to set until the fluffy yellow chicks peek out from under her wings. The chicks and hens can be put out on new grass, and by the end of summer another area is ready for garden. The roosters can be butchered and the best hens kept to replace burned-out cluckers destined for that great pot of home-made chicken noodle soup Campbell's hasn't even dreamed of yet. When we toured Tom Larson's farm this summer, he showed us his "chicken tractors." These are portable, covered pens on skids that he moves each day to new grass. After starting his chicks in a brooder, he raises several batches of broilers in his portable pens. Fresh water and feed is available to the birds, and the grass supplements their diet. By moving the tractors, the birds are always on clean ground. If the tractors are moved often enough, the grass will recover and grow back. It can be pastured again in a few weeks. If the tractors are left in place long enough for the chickens to thoroughly scratch up the grass, it can be tilled and prepared for garden. To learn more about chickens in the garden and how to set up your own "chicken tractor," check out these books from your library or NSAS, or contact the publisher: Chicken Tractor: The Gardener's Guide to Happy Hens and Healthy Soil, by Andy Lee. Published by Good Earth Publications, PO Box 160, Columbus, NC 28872. Phone and Fax: 704-863-2288. Pastured Poultry Profits, by Joel Salatin. Published by Polyface, Inc., Swoope, VA. Available through the Stockman Grass Farmer. NSAS News Annual Meeting Set for February 28 The 1998 Annual Meeting of the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society will address Wise Choices, Bright Futures: Questioning Trends in Food and Farming Systems. The meeting is planned for February 28 at the Leadership Center in Aurora. (Please note the new location!) Dr. Charles Benbrook will join NSAS members for a day of presentations and workshops on critical issues facing agriculture today. Dr. Benbrook will present the implications of biotechnology on production agriculture, the environment and consumers. His discussion will focus on changes in the seed and pesticide industry, labeling issues, and the treatment of genetically engineered organisms in the organic certification process. Dr. Benbrook is a private consultant who works with consumer and environmental groups, researchers and the government to explore policy issues and possible solutions. He authored the report Pest Management at the Crossroads. The meeting will include interesting, practical workshops on a wide range of topics such as sustainable hog production, organic farming and gardening, biological pest management, urban gardening, and rural zoning issues. An overview of the past ten years of research and education projects funded through the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program will be presented. Other plans include a delicious noon meal featuring food grown by NSAS members and a silent auction. Registration materials will be included in the winter NSAS newsletter. For more information, call NSAS at 402-254-2289. Western Conference Announced Recognizing the unique climate and farming conditions of western Nebraska, NSAS holds a special conference every year focusing on issues relevant to farmers in this region. The 6th annual NSAS Western Conference will be held on Saturday, January 31, 1998, at the Mid-Plains Community College in North Platte. The theme will be Renewing People, Profit and the Environment for Agriculture: Rural Community-Friendly Strategies. Mark your calendars now for what promises to be the biggest and best Western Conference ever! More details will be published in the November Update. If you have any suggestions for this year's conference, contact western organizer Jane Sooby at 308-254-3918. NSAS Directory Available The 1997-1999 NSAS Directory will be ready in October. This is our most complete and informative directory ever! It includes contact information for most NSAS members as well as an extensive listing of sustainable agriculture resource organizations, groups participating in the Nebraska IMPACT Project, and the NSAS Speakers' Bureau. The directory is indexed and includes listings of NSAS members by county. The directory will be mailed to NSAS members and IMPACT groups during the month of October. If you are not a current NSAS member, join or renew now and receive your copy of this invaluable resource! See page 11 for membership information. Dairy Graziers are Optimistic About Farming Victoria Mundy, University of Kentucky You read lots of trade magazine stories about how management intensive grazing (MIG) systems benefit dairy farms. But are you just hearing about the successes? Wisconsin researchers needed some good answers to that question, since dairy is so important in their state. So, they did two very large, random surveys of Wisconsin dairy farmers. The survey results reflect the practices and intentions of Wisconsin dairy farmers in general, not those of a select and highly visible group of graziers. MIG for dairies in Wisconsin is well established. More than 14% of Wisconsin dairiers are now fully or semi-intensive graziers. And that number is growing fast. A "fully intensive grazing dairy" is one in which pasture is the primary source of total feed for milking cows during grazing months. A "semi-intensive grazing dairy" is one in which pasture provides for milking cows' forage needs, but is not the primary source of total feed during grazing months. In both systems, cows graze in pasture paddocks, moving to fresh pasture at least once a week. The growth of MIG is concentrated in regions where topography, land prices, land tenure arrangements, and regional economic activity encourage grazing dairies. Farmer grazing networks and Extension agents can encourage MIG in their areas, too. Wisconsin farmers who use intensive grazing are very similar in age and education to dairy farmers who don't — except that graziers tend to have weaker family ties to dairying. This implies that a farmer whose family historically used another system, or who has money invested in a different system, might find MIG hard to adopt. Wisconsin MIG dairy farmers tend to use few production-maximizing technologies and business management practices such as Total Mixed Ration machinery, Bovine Growth Hormone, or Dairy Herd Improvement Association services. MIG dairies typically do have lower milk production per cow and are much smaller than other dairies. On the other hand, more MIG dairy farmers than non-MIG farmers report that they are likely to expand their operations. MIG farmers have a strong "environmental ethic." They are especially concerned about erosion and chemical use. Wisconsin dairiers in general resolutely support a structure of agriculture with moderate-sized, family-operated farms. Economically speaking, MIG dairies are competitive — depending upon how you look at it. Financial return to capital is higher for MIG dairies than other dairies. Total farm income is lower since MIG farms are smaller. When full costs including labor and management are considered, MIG and non-MIG returns are about equal. Farm economics are only part of the whole picture. MIG farms require considerably less family labor time, even though labor per cow is greater than on non-MIG farms. So, family members are more likely to have off-farm jobs — and total family income is about the same on MIG farms as on other dairy farms. Fully intensive MIG farmers are more optimistic about farming than other Wisconsin dairiers are. They are more likely to see themselves farming in the future, partly because of their off-farm income. So MIG does look helpful for dairy's future in Wisconsin. What about Nebraska? A brief 1994 survey of Nebraska dairy farmers indicated that, at the time, only about 100 farmers might be described as semi-intensive graziers. But the survey also revealed that more than 350 of the 1135 licensed Nebraska dairy farmers were interested in learning about grazing for dairy operations. Given the positive results that Wisconsin is experiencing with MIG for dairies, Nebraska dairy farmers who want to learn more are onto something good. References: Anderson, B.E., and R. Grant. 1994. Dairy/Pasture Use Survey. p.17-19. Dairy Report. Nebraska Cooperative Extension MP65-A. Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Lincoln, NE 68583. Jackson-Smith, D., B. Barham, M. Nevius, and R. Klemme. 1996. Grazing in Dairyland. Agricultural Technology and Family Farm Institute Technical Rpt. #5. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI 53706. Hogs Thrive in Alternative Production System Jane Sooby Conventional hog production is moving more and more toward the model pioneered by the poultry industry. In this production system, farmers construct expensive, high-tech confinement facilities and raise hogs under contract with a corporate partner. The expected life of a confinement facility is about 10 years. Often by the time the farmer pays off construction costs, the facility is obsolete and the cycle begins all over again. Because water is required to flush and handle the manure produced in confinement systems, large amounts of semi-liquid material need to be disposed of. The odor and possible water contamination associated with this system are causing alarm in the general public. The crowded conditions in which the animals live create major stresses on the hogs' health and well-being. While proponents of industrialized hog production would like us to believe that this is an inevitable trend, sustainable farmers across the country are demonstrating alternative hog production methods that are clean, humane, and profitable. Two central Nebraska farmers raise hogs differently from the industry norm of concentrated, large-scale production. Rod Nagorski keeps his hogs outdoors while Bryce Ritz runs a 112-sow farrow-to-finish operation in hoop structures. Both of these farmers from Comstock, Nebraska, use these alternatives for financial and hog health reasons. Construction costs for total confinement hog structures are too expensive for most family-sized farms to enter large-scale hog production. "Even if you get it paid for in 10-15 years," said Bryce, "by then the facility will be too old" and obsolete. "The farmer is at (financial) risk, has to build the facility, and never totally recoups his investment." Rod concurs that high construction costs and interest rates are a major barrier to large-scale hog production. "You have so much money wrapped up in those buildings, you have to raise hogs the rest of your life to pay for it. You can't get out if you want to," he said. Rod keeps 110 sows outdoors, providing a shed and hay bales for shelter in the winter. "These hogs will be mine a lot sooner than the banker's," he said. His main cost is feed. Sows and gilts are run on alfalfa in season and fed on corn and barley in colder weather. Some of his sows farrowed in weeds this year, producing "nice, big pigs." Rod plans to build A-frame structures to house the hogs. Because he doesn't rely only on his hog enterprise, he has the flexibility to run as many or as few hogs as he feels comfortable with. Besides hogs, Rod raises buffalo, cattle and chickens for meat and eggs. Bryce raises his hogs in a hoop structure, a semi-circular frame covered with a canvas top. The main advantages of hoop structures are the low cost (around $6,000 for a 30' x 60' structure), and a better environment for the animals. Hogs are healthy and physically fit in his production system. Bryce concedes that in confinement systems, feed conversion in winter is better than in the hoop structure because the controlled environment keeps the hogs warmer and none of their energy is lost to warming. Fall and spring feed conversion rates and rates of gain, though, for Bryce's hogs compare favorably to hogs in confinement systems. Bryce farrows his sows in a crate where they remain for a week to 10 days. Then the sow and piglets are moved to a free-stall pen where the sow can get up and move around, improving her condition and attitude. The piglets are weaned at about four and a half weeks, compared with 2 weeks in confinement production. They are kept in the pen until they are five weeks old, giving both the sow and Bryce a break. Bryce maximizes the capacity of his building by running four groups of 28 sows each, cleaning the building between each group. But he feels that this is more than his farm can support. Running 56 sows, or two groups of 28, better fits the feed and bedding he can produce on his farm, and still generates enough compost to fertilize his crops. By using the waste from his hog production to fertilize his crops, Bryce completes the nutrient cycles on his farm. Because the manure is in a dry, aerobic condition, the smell is less offensive than liquid manure. Bryce and Rod are concerned about the health of pigs in confinement systems and the resulting quality of meat that comes out of them. "If you're running hogs in that environment," said Bryce, "there's no way to keep them without high levels of antibiotics and medication. It's not a healthy animal if it requires medication to keep it alive." Bryce points out that scientists have introduced a "stress gene" into hog genetics that encourages leanness. This gene can produce porcine stress syndrome, a disease resulting from extreme stress that can cause hogs to die from the stress of just being moved from one place to another. Pigs suffering from this syndrome frequently produce pork that the food industry characterizes as "PSE" or pale, soft, and exudative. This meat is watery, unusually pale, and gives off fluid when cut. This low quality meat is almost useless in the meat industry. Bryce is a member of a farmers' marketing group that cooperates to get a good bid for their meat and sends out a semi load once a week. He believes that small-scale farmers can get a better price for their product by working together. These central Nebraska farmers are developing alternative models of hog production and marketing that reduce overhead costs, environmental waste, and hog health problems while producing high quality pork. Bryce Ritz and Rod Nagorski demonstrated their hog production systems at a farm tour this August. The tour was co-sponsored by OCIA NE #1. Large Farms are Thriving An Agricultural Brief issued by the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce contains fascinating data on large farms versus small farms. Based on data from the 1992 census, the brief shows how large farms are thriving while smaller farms appear to barely be hanging on. The Bureau defines a large farm as one with over $100,000 worth of sales per year. The brief reports that while the total number of farms has decreased from 2.7 million in 1969 to 1.9 million in 1992, the number of large farms has increased from 51,995 to 333,865 in that same period. According to the Bureau, in 1992 large farms operated 54% of farmland and produced 83% of all farm products sold in the U.S. A huge 98% of poultry and poultry products were sold by large farms in 1992, as well as 92% of cotton, 93% of vegetables and melons, and 91% of nursery and greenhouse commodities. In 1992, large farms were only 34% of the total number of farms but received 63% of government payments. Small farms comprised 66% of the total number of farms but received only 37% of government payments. At the same time, more than 90% of large farm operators considered farming their main occupation, while only 47% of small farm operators did. Only 24% of large-farm operators worked off-farm compared with 57% of small-farm operators. According to the Brief, large farms averaged an annual net cash return of $83,812 (excluding government payments), compared with an average net cash return to small farms of $1,836. You may order a free copy of "Large Farms Are Thriving in the United States" by calling 1-800-523-3215, or look at http:/www.census.gov/ftp/pub/econ/www/ - Jane Sooby To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From Erorganic@aol.com Thu Oct 16 22:14:43 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.254.87] (may be forged)) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA03158 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:14:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: from emout36.mail.aol.com (emout36.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.28]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA19881 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout36.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA27686; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971016192432_2034282394@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: london@sunsite.unc.edu cc: dhinds@ucol.mx, sals@rain.org, Sprinkraft@aol.com, cvof@iquest.net, wfof@ptel.net, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, cooperative-bus@relay.doit.wisc.edu Subject: Re: OFMA position on Small Farm Exemption and NOSB history Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 177 Hello Larry, Appreciate your thoughts on the analysis below. On the OFMA Web site, http://www.iquest.net/ofma/ (which address I know you are familiar with Larry, but I constantly repeat for other folks) on the main page, is a link to the comments the Organic Farmers Marketing Association supplied over a year ago to the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Chief Advocate Counsel. Please review and improve on them, by individually contacting or working with OFMA. Many of our concerns at the time were to make sure the integrity and truthfulness of the "organic" label is not maligned and made to mislead the purchasing public. To bring a truly permanent organic market into being, the highest of all priorities is that the customer can trust the certification procedures and the label "organic". Here is some information gotten off the Web by searching for Regulatory Flexibility Act. This Act was tremendously improved by the 94 Congress and is meant to correct many of the abuses carried out under administrative rule making in the past. OFMA's proposals to have different requirements for small to moderate size organic farmers, handlers and certifiers could be enlarged on by active participation of those effected. The Web is obviously the place to develop that national consensus. To me the first necessity is for all those entering the discussion to understand clearly the power and the language of the RFA, and to follow the SBA's format for making RFA work for the organic community. >From the Web: Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy Laws and Regulations Affecting Small Business The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is designed to require federal agencies to analyze the impact of proposed and final rules on small businesses. For annual reports on agency compliance with the RFA, see the Annual Report of the Chief Counsel on Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A Guide to the Regulatory Flexibility Act is a document written to provide an overview of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). March 29, 1996, President Clinton signed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The new law amends the RFA (originally passed in 1980) to allow judicial review of any agency's compliance with the law. For a copy of these statutes, please write the U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, 409 3rd Street, S.W., Mail Code 3113, Washington, DC 20416. Advocacy provides a summary for the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act. For a list of comments sent by the SBA's chief counsel for Advocacy to various government agencies addressing compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the impact of proposed regulations on small business, see the Index of Regulatory Communications for 1996 and 1997. For a current list of the chief counsel's legislative activity, see Congressional Testimony of the Office of Advocacy for 1996 and 1997. The SBA Small Business Size Standards must be used by federal agencies in most cases for performing Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses. Standards are listed by SIC. Last Modified: 8-16-97 And now some details on NOSB Small Farm Exemption Recommendations: Below are the recommendations of the NOSB regarding the Small Farm Exemption. The Small Farm Exemption NOSB recommendations are onerous and illegal. The language was developed by the Crop Committee under the direction of Gene Kahn. The thinking was to not allow those small farms exempted under the Small Farm Exemption from marketing through exporters, wholesalers, brokers, processors, or retail chain warehouses and from processing and selling their products (in this last instance, small farms would have to be certified as a organic handling operation to do so). OFMA has taken the position that this was neither the language or intent of the Act. OFPA was designed to promote small and innovative new businesses as well as to relieve all farms with gross sales of under $5000 from even having to be formally certified. The intent of the Act certainly was not to add more requirements to the Small Farm Exemption as the NOSB has recommended through the rule writing procedures. An Exemption means an unequivocal exemption from the Act. OFMA felt the NOSB recommendation was so contradictory to the Act that the USDA/NOP would never make it part of the Proposed Rule. It remains to be seen, but certainly if it is part of the USDA's Proposed Rule, removing the additional requirements should be a simple win for organic farmers under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and OFPA. NOSB Final Recommendations B. SMALL FARMER EXEMPTION STATUTORY PROVISIONS U.S. Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, Section 2106 (d): "Small Farmer Exemption.--Subsection (a)(1)* shall not apply to persons who sell no more than $5,000 annually in value of agricultural products." (A) a person may sell or label an agricultural product as organically produced only if such product is produced and handled in accordance with this title; and (B) no person may affix a label to, or provide other market information concerning, an agricultural product if such label or information implies, directly or indirectly, that such product is produced and handled using organic methods, except in accordance with this title." RECOMMENDATION Persons who sell no more than $5,000 annually in value of agricultural products and sell or label a portion or all of such agricultural products as organically produced or handled are exempted from certification by an USDA-accredited agency but are required to produce and handle organic products in accordance with the production and handling standards provided for in the OFPA. The exempted person shall demonstrate compliance with the OFPA by the implementation of the following measures: (1) Signature on a completed Declaration form, which attests to a thorough knowledge of the provisions of the OFPA and to the production and handling of organic products according to the OFPA. (2) The development of an Organic Farm and/or Handling Plan, in accordance with the requirements of the OFPA. (3) The establishment of record-keeping adequate to trace an organic product from production site through to sale for consumption. Records must be kept for five years. (4) The provisions of public access to the above documents. Exempted Small Farmers who demonstrate compliance with the OFPA shall be able to market non-certified organic products from their farms directly to consumers at direct sales outlets. Examples of direct sales outlets include roadside stands, farm markets, and consumer subscription programs (Community Supported Agriculture). Exempted Small Farmers who wish to market directly to retail outlets may do so by providing copies of the Declaration form to the individual retail outlet. In no instance shall non-certified organic products be marketed through exporters, wholesalers, brokers, processors, or retail chain warehouses. Furthermore, an exempt farmer may not sell or label an agricultural product as "certified organic" unless certified by an USDA-accredited certifying agency. The exempted Small Farmer and/or retail outlet may display the Small Farmer Declaration form at the place of sale. There shall be no mandatory filing requirements for the above small farmer exemption provisions. All required information must be on file and available on the premises of the exempted farmer. The above provisions shall not be construed as precluding a State from issuing additional regulations regarding the Small Farmer Exemption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SMALL FARMER EXEMPTION FROM USDA CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ANNUAL DECLARATION OF _____________________ 1. I declare that I sell no more than $5,000 annually in all agricultural products and that all agricultural products that I sell as organically produced or handled are produced and handled in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). 2. I declare that: a. I have read and understand the regulations regarding production and handling of organic products to the OFPA; b. I have developed an organic farm and/or handling plan in accordance with the requirements of the OFPA; c. I have records tracing the organic production from production site to sale; and d. I will provide reasonable public access to the above documents. 3. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED this _______ day of ____________________, 19___, at ____________________________. (city & State) ___________________________________ (Signature) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To call small farmers uncertified is inconsistent with OFPA, among all the other inconsistencies in the NOSB proposal. A person producing under $5000 that meets the USDA/NOP calls themselves "organic", that is all there is to say. A Last Word: If the organic community wants small farms exempt, I think it will take an Act of Congress. By the same token, I am convinced this is not the approach to take. Instead, get certified by an accredited certifying agent (wait until the Act is implemented) and take control of the USDA/NOP by getting some folks (we have Bill Welsh now on the NOSB) on the NOSB and puttting all our energies into implementing the OFPA as it is written--to make the "organic" label so legitimate that markets expand so fast, small farmers can establish permanent local and regional clientele, plus market excess through the marketing association they control, the Organic Farmers Marketing Association. Votes count, not dollars you make, when we get down to the nitty-gritty. OFMA and Ozark Small Farm Viability Project carried the small farmer position forward at the NOSB meetings, with the USDA/NOP staff, right to the highest levels of USDA, EPA, FDA, FSIS over the last 6 years so small to moderate size organic farmers would not get decimated in the process of implementing a credible National Organic Program. Now, it is time for all those who are the rebels to take up the action during the Proposed Rule comment period. We need a quality analysis critiqued by many. We need a consensus that responds so clearly: quality standards, that satisfy consumer perception to establish a permanent and trustworthy organic label, that consumers will support nationwide. >From me to you brothers and sisters, Eric From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 16 22:23:25 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (fddisunsite.oit.unc.edu [152.2.254.81]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA03226; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:23:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA21626; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id WAA03552 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id WAA03545 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pearl.mhtc.net (pearl.mhtc.net [208.135.157.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id WAA08895 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hh1122191.direcpc.com (plat-cas1-cs-35.dial.mhtc.net [156.46.19.165]) by pearl.mhtc.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/FNG) with ESMTP id VAA22951; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:05:56 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199710170205.VAA22951@pearl.mhtc.net> From: "D.B.Sullivan" To: , "sanet" Subject: Re: NSAS Newsletter no. 60, Fall, 1997 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 20:55:55 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 178 ---------- From: Cris Carusi To: sanet Subject: NSAS Newsletter no. 60, Fall, 1997 Date: Thursday, October 16, 1997 7:29 PM NEBRASKA SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY NEWSLETTER Fall 1997, Number 60 The Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society promotes an agriculture that builds healthy land, people, communities and quality of life, for present and future generations. This is an abridged version of the NSAS newsletter. If you wish to read the complete version, please visit our web site at www.netins.net/showcase/nsas NSAS is a non-profit membership organization. Annual membership costs $25, which includes a year's subscription to the NSAS newsletter. For more information about NSAS or the information in this newsletter, please contact: NSAS, PO Box 736, Hartington, NE 68739; 402-254-2289. Fax: 402-254-6930. E-mail: cecarusi@hartel.net. For the individual who has developed a grazing system, this manure is "money in the pot." A 100 head beef cow herd will produce approximately 1150 tones of manure. The University of Nebraska has valued each ton, on a nutrient basis, at $9.57. The gross value of that manure is a whopping $11,005.50. Does the value of manure reflect loss to the atmoshere of 50 % in the form of gasses.?? To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Thu Oct 16 22:24:35 1997 Received: from helios.oit.unc.edu (helios.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA03241; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by helios.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA21910; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (majord@localhost) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) id WAA03234 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:06:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-931108.0) with ESMTP id WAA03206 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:06:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emout36.mail.aol.com (emout36.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.28]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.8.5/RK-970619.0) with ESMTP id WAA08842 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:06:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout36.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA27686; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971016192432_2034282394@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: london@sunsite.unc.edu cc: dhinds@ucol.mx, sals@rain.org, Sprinkraft@aol.com, cvof@iquest.net, wfof@ptel.net, smallfarm-mg@maat.reeusda.gov, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, cooperative-bus@relay.doit.wisc.edu Subject: Re: OFMA position on Small Farm Exemption and NOSB history Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 179 Hello Larry, Appreciate your thoughts on the analysis below. On the OFMA Web site, http://www.iquest.net/ofma/ (which address I know you are familiar with Larry, but I constantly repeat for other folks) on the main page, is a link to the comments the Organic Farmers Marketing Association supplied over a year ago to the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Chief Advocate Counsel. Please review and improve on them, by individually contacting or working with OFMA. Many of our concerns at the time were to make sure the integrity and truthfulness of the "organic" label is not maligned and made to mislead the purchasing public. To bring a truly permanent organic market into being, the highest of all priorities is that the customer can trust the certification procedures and the label "organic". Here is some information gotten off the Web by searching for Regulatory Flexibility Act. This Act was tremendously improved by the 94 Congress and is meant to correct many of the abuses carried out under administrative rule making in the past. OFMA's proposals to have different requirements for small to moderate size organic farmers, handlers and certifiers could be enlarged on by active participation of those effected. The Web is obviously the place to develop that national consensus. To me the first necessity is for all those entering the discussion to understand clearly the power and the language of the RFA, and to follow the SBA's format for making RFA work for the organic community. >From the Web: Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy Laws and Regulations Affecting Small Business The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is designed to require federal agencies to analyze the impact of proposed and final rules on small businesses. For annual reports on agency compliance with the RFA, see the Annual Report of the Chief Counsel on Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A Guide to the Regulatory Flexibility Act is a document written to provide an overview of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). March 29, 1996, President Clinton signed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The new law amends the RFA (originally passed in 1980) to allow judicial review of any agency's compliance with the law. For a copy of these statutes, please write the U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, 409 3rd Street, S.W., Mail Code 3113, Washington, DC 20416. Advocacy provides a summary for the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act. For a list of comments sent by the SBA's chief counsel for Advocacy to various government agencies addressing compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the impact of proposed regulations on small business, see the Index of Regulatory Communications for 1996 and 1997. For a current list of the chief counsel's legislative activity, see Congressional Testimony of the Office of Advocacy for 1996 and 1997. The SBA Small Business Size Standards must be used by federal agencies in most cases for performing Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses. Standards are listed by SIC. Last Modified: 8-16-97 And now some details on NOSB Small Farm Exemption Recommendations: Below are the recommendations of the NOSB regarding the Small Farm Exemption. The Small Farm Exemption NOSB recommendations are onerous and illegal. The language was developed by the Crop Committee under the direction of Gene Kahn. The thinking was to not allow those small farms exempted under the Small Farm Exemption from marketing through exporters, wholesalers, brokers, processors, or retail chain warehouses and from processing and selling their products (in this last instance, small farms would have to be certified as a organic handling operation to do so). OFMA has taken the position that this was neither the language or intent of the Act. OFPA was designed to promote small and innovative new businesses as well as to relieve all farms with gross sales of under $5000 from even having to be formally certified. The intent of the Act certainly was not to add more requirements to the Small Farm Exemption as the NOSB has recommended through the rule writing procedures. An Exemption means an unequivocal exemption from the Act. OFMA felt the NOSB recommendation was so contradictory to the Act that the USDA/NOP would never make it part of the Proposed Rule. It remains to be seen, but certainly if it is part of the USDA's Proposed Rule, removing the additional requirements should be a simple win for organic farmers under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and OFPA. NOSB Final Recommendations B. SMALL FARMER EXEMPTION STATUTORY PROVISIONS U.S. Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, Section 2106 (d): "Small Farmer Exemption.--Subsection (a)(1)* shall not apply to persons who sell no more than $5,000 annually in value of agricultural products." (A) a person may sell or label an agricultural product as organically produced only if such product is produced and handled in accordance with this title; and (B) no person may affix a label to, or provide other market information concerning, an agricultural product if such label or information implies, directly or indirectly, that such product is produced and handled using organic methods, except in accordance with this title." RECOMMENDATION Persons who sell no more than $5,000 annually in value of agricultural products and sell or label a portion or all of such agricultural products as organically produced or handled are exempted from certification by an USDA-accredited agency but are required to produce and handle organic products in accordance with the production and handling standards provided for in the OFPA. The exempted person shall demonstrate compliance with the OFPA by the implementation of the following measures: (1) Signature on a completed Declaration form, which attests to a thorough knowledge of the provisions of the OFPA and to the production and handling of organic products according to the OFPA. (2) The development of an Organic Farm and/or Handling Plan, in accordance with the requirements of the OFPA. (3) The establishment of record-keeping adequate to trace an organic product from production site through to sale for consumption. Records must be kept for five years. (4) The provisions of public access to the above documents. Exempted Small Farmers who demonstrate compliance with the OFPA shall be able to market non-certified organic products from their farms directly to consumers at direct sales outlets. Examples of direct sales outlets include roadside stands, farm markets, and consumer subscription programs (Community Supported Agriculture). Exempted Small Farmers who wish to market directly to retail outlets may do so by providing copies of the Declaration form to the individual retail outlet. In no instance shall non-certified organic products be marketed through exporters, wholesalers, brokers, processors, or retail chain warehouses. Furthermore, an exempt farmer may not sell or label an agricultural product as "certified organic" unless certified by an USDA-accredited certifying agency. The exempted Small Farmer and/or retail outlet may display the Small Farmer Declaration form at the place of sale. There shall be no mandatory filing requirements for the above small farmer exemption provisions. All required information must be on file and available on the premises of the exempted farmer. The above provisions shall not be construed as precluding a State from issuing additional regulations regarding the Small Farmer Exemption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SMALL FARMER EXEMPTION FROM USDA CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ANNUAL DECLARATION OF _____________________ 1. I declare that I sell no more than $5,000 annually in all agricultural products and that all agricultural products that I sell as organically produced or handled are produced and handled in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). 2. I declare that: a. I have read and understand the regulations regarding production and handling of organic products to the OFPA; b. I have developed an organic farm and/or handling plan in accordance with the requirements of the OFPA; c. I have records tracing the organic production from production site to sale; and d. I will provide reasonable public access to the above documents. 3. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED this _______ day of ____________________, 19___, at ____________________________. (city & State) ___________________________________ (Signature) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To call small farmers uncertified is inconsistent with OFPA, among all the other inconsistencies in the NOSB proposal. A person producing under $5000 that meets the USDA/NOP calls themselves "organic", that is all there is to say. A Last Word: If the organic community wants small farms exempt, I think it will take an Act of Congress. By the same token, I am convinced this is not the approach to take. Instead, get certified by an accredited certifying agent (wait until the Act is implemented) and take control of the USDA/NOP by getting some folks (we have Bill Welsh now on the NOSB) on the NOSB and puttting all our energies into implementing the OFPA as it is written--to make the "organic" label so legitimate that markets expand so fast, small farmers can establish permanent local and regional clientele, plus market excess through the marketing association they control, the Organic Farmers Marketing Association. Votes count, not dollars you make, when we get down to the nitty-gritty. OFMA and Ozark Small Farm Viability Project carried the small farmer position forward at the NOSB meetings, with the USDA/NOP staff, right to the highest levels of USDA, EPA, FDA, FSIS over the last 6 years so small to moderate size organic farmers would not get decimated in the process of implementing a credible National Organic Program. Now, it is time for all those who are the rebels to take up