As I continue my series on “Going Local”, I’ve come to one of the questions many of us in the local food and economy movement get asked by skeptics a lot. The question is, “Is going local expensive”? This question cannot necessarily easily be answered in a short response, but the general consensus from the few studies that have been done so far is, “Not necessarily.” I will attempt to explain a reasoning over the next several paragraphs so that you can have an educated argument with the skeptics in your life about “Going Local”.

I’m sure many folks have heard the argument being made that “Going Local”, as in supporting a local food and local economy system, is just too expensive and the benefits just don’t outweigh the costs. However, most folks don’t realize that the current system is actually more expensive than a local system could be because of all the hidden costs, and the money just doesn’t stay local. We just don’t factor in all of the subsidies (provided by our taxes), fuel costs, environmental issues/costs, and quality costs in our current system when we’re at the grocery store buying a bag of 99 cent potato chips. Many folks want to argue with how expensive living locally is instead of realizing all of the benefits that it can provide for a local economy, while allowing for folks to have more control over their lives and environment. My current philosophy on “Going Local” is that all of our population should have access to good healthy food and responsibly produced energy that is marketed at a producer sustaining, yet fair price. “Going Local” should also create local jobs that pay a living wage for those who aren’t afraid of hard rewarding work, and put more people back to working on and producing from the land.

Since we are personally in the grass-fed and pastured meats business, I have folks from time to time that want to argue about the price of our products such as ground beef. We sell our ground beef, which is 90% lean and 10% fat with nothing else added and sourced from grass-fed cattle that we know where they have been and how they’ve been treated since birth, for $3.99 per pound. For the most part our demand exceeds our supply, but I still have people that tell me this is too expensive for ground beef. I’ve decided to quit arguing with these folks, because even if I tell them what I just divulged to you while explaining that there isn’t a huge distribution system between my beef and their hands, that their purchase is helping keep a sustainable farmer in business, that our livestock are processed in small batches by low volume processors, and that I can just about tell them exactly which steer or heifer that they are consuming, they still don’t believe our product is worth this small premium. There are some people who have a long way to go in understanding living locally, and some folks may not ever.

In a recent study finished by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Iowa in December 2009, they found that when only market cost was looked at for local vs. non-local fresh vegetables, non-local fresh vegetables were more expensive than local fresh vegetables. The local veggies averaged $1.25 per pound while non-local veggies averaged $1.39 per pound. That is a difference of $0.14 per pound. So this study basically says that “Going Local” with vegetables can be cheaper than non-local vegetables. So the argument that China can grow vegetables cheaper than can be done here begins to not hold as much water. I still can’t visuallize how this could be when just looking at market cost only, but certainly not with all the other hidden costs such as fuel, cheap labor, etc. that should be factored in. This study can be accessed online at http;//www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/prices.html if you would like to look into it more.

To complete a good argument outside of just money on “Going Local”, I think you have to mention the logical other benefits. Many of these are becoming more and more desired by the general public. Connecting people directly with the land and their food is a good thing. It helps them earn respect for their food, fiber, and fuel, and respect for the people who were involved in producing it. Also, who can argue against the need and desire to have clean air, clean water, and healthy living soil. Regardless of where you stand on “Climate Change” how can you consciously argue against having these three things for yourself, your kids, your friends, and your grandkids. Having access to good, nutritious, un-adulterated food is a choice, but it can’t be a choice if it isn’t given a fair playing field or isn’t available. I personally think that having this access should be a right, whether you choose to exercise that right is your decision or choice, just like voting. Allowing folks to have access to the ability to achieve good health is necessary, and has the potential to save Americans millions of dollars each year. I believe that several of the ailments that we are currently facing as a problem nation-wide have been caused by an unhealthy food system, but I’ll save that for another argument and another time.

As we look at the task before us, and what it will take to go local, not everything today is stacked against us. We actually have many things working towards our favor. All around us, Creation is trying to tell us that taking care of It and “Going Local” is the right thing to do. It isn’t about being a recluse, it is about the local environment taking care of a majority of peoples local needs. This applies whether you live in Texas, Maine, Brazil, or China for that matter. More and more producers and consumers are coming together in organizations like Slow Food (see www.slowfoodusa.org), Local Harvest (see www.localharvest.org), Texoma Core and their Texoma Grown Directory (see www.texomacore.org/Texoma-Grown-Directory.html), and the Organic Consumers Association (see www.organicconsumers.org) to network and promote the idea of “Going Local”. If you are a producer like me, local, quality products speak for themselves. “Going Local” is catching on in mainstream media and film as many people begin to see the value of this concept instead of worrying about how Greece’s Treasury woes are going to affect our economy in Texas. When we start discussing such a situation we’ve become too dependent and inter-connected. The internet has exploded with volumes of websites that include farmer’s markets, online books, articles, recipes, directories, on-line farm tours, how-to’s on gardening, how-to’s on converting your diesel truck to veggie oil, and the like. Never in our nations history has the time been so primed for a grass-roots movement like “Going Local”.

This article is the last in my series on “Going Local”. I will return to my regular information filled soapbox style articles in July. I’m glad that the publisher of this magazine has given me the opportunity to express myself in words and thought over the last year-and-a-half. I look forward to writing for this audience for many more months and years to come. I hope that you, the reader, get as much out of reading my thoughts as I do generating them. Please don’t hesitate to let me know what you think.

I want to close this article series with a few summarizing comments from a practical over-educated farm boy. If we are serious about taking the high road and changing our region, state, and country to a beneficial more locally based system, I think the following statements will be key. We should stand up for our farms, consumer choice, and “Going Local”, while being tactful, fact based, organized, and firm. We have to promote an environment that encourages thinking outside the box, house, yard, or pasture. We must encourage opportunities for folks to have choices and opportunities. We have to be mindful of defining local and how it is self-regulated and/or government regulated. Remember “local” has varying definitions, and it depends on the product. We must support like-minded groups and individuals, while encouraging networks. We should listen with an open mind to all thoughts and comments, whether good or bad. We should promote the harvest and gleaning of all relevant and useful information and apply it in our lives and businesses. We live in a time where access to information is the most free and easy to access as any other time in history. We should never loose site of actual costs and actual affordability. We should always try to be in some state of education, whether that is educating ourselves or teaching others. Finally, one of the things that I think will be most important in this movement is getting young people involved early, now, and often. Farmers aren’t getting any younger.

Until July, Farm On and Get Local!

By now many of you are following along with my series of articles about “Going Local”. If you haven’t been, try to find a back issue of LNF, or e-mail me and I’ll shoot you a copy of my previous writings. So far we’ve discussed the definitions in the “Going Local” movement, and we’ve talked about the importance of food-sheds. (No, not the place where you keep your pickles.). Now we’re going to move into discussing the problems that we will run into, and ways that I see of approaching these problems on the way to “Going Local”. I gleaned these problems from discussions and observations at the Texas Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association (TOFGA) annual Conference back in January in San Marcos, Texas.

Time after time as we turn on the nightly, or in this internet age, the minute-by-minute news we keep hearing about climate change, those on the left saying how much of the environment is doomed by this phenomena, and those on the right saying that it is all a bunch of bull. Regardless of which camp you are in my view is that one of the safest ways to argue organic, sustainable, and local food production is to point out the fact that we all want clean air, clean water, clean lively soil, and clean food. Honestly, who can argue with that. I mean come on, is someone who just likes to argue for the sake of arguing going to say, “No to clean stuff. I love to breath tainted air that I can see, drink water the color of molasses, let my kids play on arsenic laced soil, and eat E. coli contaminated meat.” I don’t really think so. Hopefully this statement makes my point, you basically can’t argue against these four cleans, and this is the message sustainable, organic agriculture has got to put forth to win the battle of concepts and words.

At the TOFGA meeting I noted that several folks mentioned that we as a population need to accept that we do have a limited supply of most resources and that we need to be stewards of these resources. The only resources that aren’t necessarily limited are the sun, wind, and in some cases nuclear (Limited by how it is used and the potential risks such as meltdowns and waste disposal. When handled and recycled correctly, such as some Western European countries like France do, there is minimal waste produced for disposal. Much of it is refined back to a usable less harmful form.) along with several other elements that are abundantly available in our surroundings. Thus, resource stewardship is a must, and the only way that we can achieve the proper level of stewardship is to promote common sense and science-based organic, sustainable, and local agriculture. We have to learn to be stewards of our finite resources, while learning how to responsibly use the more available energy sources. Organic may not be the complete entire answer,, but it is part of the answer. Diversifying our energy use from mainly fossil fuel to a mixed resource base is probably going to be key to our modern society over the next 25 to 50 years, regardless of your stance on climate change. Wind and solar power will definitely be key players in this effort. Much like food production, it just makes sense for national security and economic reasons to produce much if not all of your own energy if you have the ways and/or means to do it in a sustainable manner.

From regulations to mandates sometimes our government bureaucracy seems to get out of control. Case in point, the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), the system proposed by USDA to identify and track all livestock including poultry, exotics, and perhaps someday dogs throughout their lives in a supposed effort to get a handle on currently “rampant” animal diseases. This personal rights invasive, very costly proposed system has been defeated in its current proposed from, but that isn’t the end of this proposed rediculous set of regulations that could have impacted the US’s entire food and agricultural economic system. This is just one of the sets of bad law and regulation proposed by our elected government that has come down the pike in recent years. We as farmers and food consumers are going to have to be on our toes. No longer can we just setback and let Washington or Austin do their things, because lobby groups and special interests who don’t have our interests in mind are going to be influencing law and policy for the forseeable future. If we aren’t involved to let our voices be heard and to keep things in check, we could be left in some very tight corners. We’ve got to be proactive like the folks at FARFA, Center for Rural Affairs, the Organic Trade Association, and R-Calf are doing. Go ahead and look up these organizations on the web, get involved, and become a member if you can. This will help, in most cases, our advance towards a sustainable food system.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, are causing and will cause issues and problems with farming and ranching organically/sustainably. Most of these crops are developed for a specific companies interests, and these companies have had the laws written completely in their favor. Thus, these GMO crops are going to make it harder and harder to farm organically and sustainably unless the laws get changed. Right now farmers are completely responsible for keeping GMO crops out of their non-GMO crops regardless of where the potential contamination comes from. Why aren’t the companies responsible for this? They are the ones who released their GMO for planting, and why is it that they can own the gene and thereby the crop wherever it shows up? This kind of insane, in my opinion, lack of regulation has to be saddled. Also, grass-fed livestock producers aren’t going to be left out of this mess. Alfalfa, an open pollinated plant species, is a key source of non-GMO feed and protein supplementation for many grass-fed livestock producers in times of poor quality forage or low availability of forage. Certain companies have GMO alfalfa lines ready to go into commercial production if the courts, where the argument/case is now, allow it. If this gets OK’d, grass-fed livestock producers along with non-GMO and organic alfalfa producers will be pushed into a corner, with little alternative. GMOs deserve heavy regulation, at the least, to minimize contamination of farmers fields who don’t use GMOs and to minimize contamination of our food supply. Let your voices be heard on this issue.

It was noted several times at TOFGA that it seems like too many of the organizations out their working towards sustainability and a responsible food system/economy each have their own direction. It seems they have a hard time cooperating and having a unified voice in food, farm, and environmental policy. In other words disorganization is a problem. Also, as farmers have always tended to be an independent bunch, it is hard to get us organized and cohesively working together. For a sustainable food system and economy to develop we’ve got to work to cooperate, eliminate overlap and disorganization, and pool our resources as sustainable farmers and consumers. Unifying our voice through networking and some dependence would probably benefit our cause and produce a louder voice for sustainability that can’t just be ignored anymore. We also must be presenting the consuming public with factual and unified answers to their questions. One group of folks saying one thing to the public that may not be factual can hurt our entire movement. The organizations out there that are working the hardest to be organic nay-sayers aren’t disorganized with their voice or finances, and we can’t afford to be any longer.

Many of us in the sustainable farming and food movement are very passionate about what we believe, which most of the time is wonderful! However, we also have to reallize that this is a new concept for a lot of folks. Sometimes being over-zealous or extreme and backing up arguments with rumor or here-say instead of facts can get our people and our cause mislabeled as junk and in-turn we become ignored because we’re considered the fringe. This is not a good position to be in, and I would caution everyone who believes in sustainable food and farming to be passionate yet tempered, especially when reaching out to newbies, conventional agricultural advisors, and the mainstream system. Develop less offensive and preferably data backed ways to tell folks about why what we’re trying to do is better for clean air, clean water, productive, alive soil, and clean food.

The above scenario falls right into my next discussion on our current agricultural/food education system. The current system in place, is that man knows best for everything and that we must constantly fight against nature. The organic/sustainable mindset is that we must read the natural systems and figure out ways to work with them to achieve our goals, not against them. Many professionals in the agricultural/food education and research system have labeled farmers like myself as being a little cooky and on the fringe. This may be because of the way they have been approached in the past, their personal experiences, and the ingrained teachings of the industrial system. If we want our agricultural/food education and research system to take organics and sustainability seriously, we are going to have to approach them in a unified yet non-offensive manner and immerse them in our farms and our economics so that they can see the consumer side of our farming while seeing the benefits on our farms. They need to be politely pulled out of their industrial cocoon, and shown what is happening outside those four walls that they’ve been cooped up in while performing industrial agriculture funded research and teaching our children to questionably make a living. In other words, let’s quit faulting these guys and gals for making a living for themselves, and instead show them ground zero and see if that gets their attention. Getting our agricultural/food education and research system to view our system of food and agriculture as a viable system will go a long way in our cause for sustainable and organic agriculture and family farming.

I guess at some point I’ve got to shut this article down. I could probably write about some these issues in much more detail, but for the interest of time and for the sake of avoiding boredom I think summaries work best. The final cluster of problems facing the organic/sustainable food system ties in with many of these that I’ve just mentioned. Having the funding to support research on this kind of system will eventually produce data based results that will probably support many of the things we are seeing, while not supporting some practices. We need this to happen. This is where public funding for research instead of funding from companies could be a real benefit. As I’ve already discussed moving farmers, researchers, teachers, and consumers towards a different mindset will do wonders for our cause. It is going to take time, effort, and tactfulness. Unifying ourselves as organic/sustainable farmers and consumers with voices based on facts and good data are key to standing up to the tug-of-war with the mainstream farm and food lobby for our lawmakers and the general consumers ear. Come on all of you farmers and consumers! Let’s face it, this is about taking care of Creation, making a responsible living, and providing the consumer with a healthy alternative food/health/economic system. I’m fired up, are you? Farm On!

As many of you know, and some of you may not, our family farm is located in the DFW Metroplex Food Shed. As I mentioned in the March article a food shed can be defined as a geographic zone around a particular population center that has the potential to or does supply a percentage of that populations’ food. The DFW area is currently estimated to contain around 6.3 million people, and I can’t think of a one of them that doesn’t eat and require food for nourishment. I have yet to meet a photosynthetic person. My point is that many counties surrounding the DFW Metroplex are rural, agricultural counties. In my home county, Fannin County, the 2006 Agricultural income according to the Agricultural Statistics Service was $67.5 million dollars making it the largest industry in the county. However, currently very few of the farms within the counties surrounding the DFW Metropolitan Area provide food directly to the consumers in their counties or to DFW. This is probably true for all of the more than 20 areas classified as metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) by the US Census Bureau in the State of Texas. This is something that has the potential to change, and probably will change as America and Texas decide that “Going Local” is important. Bare with me as I try to explain the concept of food sheds and food miles as it pertains to producers and consumers here in Texas.

The average every-day American currently eats food on a daily basis that has traveled around 1500 miles, aka food miles. This kind of shipping is probably not good for long-term sustainability. Shipping will become more and more expensive as fossil fuel prices continue to rise unless a practical and good yielding energy substitute comes into play. Cutting fuel consumption in the entire food chain, will help in making our society and economy more sustainable. The whole concept of a food shed for a particular metro area hinges on these facts, and encourages local food production and marketing to provide quality, and hopefully affordable locally grown and made food products for a particular population. Development of farmer-direct-to-consumer infrastructure will play a huge role in how this new style (actually old style) of food system will play out as more and more folks become concerned about food, where it is coming from, how it is raised, how sustainable is its production and consumption, and how healthy it is for them. To get a better visualization of food miles see an example calculation for Canadian food miles at http://www.fallsbrookcentre.ca/cgi-bin/calculate.pl or for calculating your meal’s carbon foot-print see http://www.eatlowcarbon.org/.

The Dallas/Fort-Worth (DFW) metropolitan area consists of 12 counties in North Central Texas. They are in no particular order Johnston, Ellis, Wise, Parker, Tarrant, Denton, Dallas, Collin, Hunt, Rockwall, Kaufman, and Delta Counties. Some locations in these counties could actually be considered food deserts, which means minimal nutritious food is produced locally or is available in grocery stores. Grocery stores are virtually non-existent in some inner city and rural areas. Many of these counties would also be included as part of the DFW Food Shed because they do have the capability due to soil type and some available land to produce food. However, the main focus that I’m trying to relay here is the ring of counties just outside of the ones mentioned above which, like my home county of Fannin, are rural, heavy agriculturally based, and have land potential to produce copious amounts of health, local, and organic food for the DFW area.

These statements can probably be made for the 24 other metropolitan areas of Texas including the 5 county region in and around Austin, the 8 county region in and around San Antonio, the 10 county region in and around Houston, the 3 county region in and around Corpus Christi, the 1 county region in and around Tyler, the 4 county region in and around Amarillo, and all the other regions that I’m leaving out. All of this information can be found at www.wikipedia.org or with the US Census Bureau. These areas have huge potential for producers and consumers. I think Texas is about 5 years behind the East and West coasts in the local food movement. So hold on to those 10-gallon hats, because we’re just getting started. I see so much untapped potential in all of our communities, if we can just continue to keep people interested and motivated.

As an example, 5 years ago there were probably no more than 5 Farmers’ Markets in the DFW Metro area, today I have been able to reference over 15. This just shows the demand and how communities are clamoring to “Go Local” for a variety of reasons including revitalization, economic, social, health. I know if you are a direct-marketing farmer like me you might not want everyone knowing about the availability of business within the market. However, the more young folks like myself, or old folks for that matter, that are out there making a living from the land by producing good food, fiber, and fuel, the better off our country will be. So I welcome competition. The market is growing and I don’t think that it will be saturated for some time. If you are a consumer wanting access to locally grown food, support the farmers, the farmers’ markets, and other marketing venues like buyers clubs or CSAs, while encouraging your families, friends, and neighbors to to do the same.

Just think of how much impact developing local food, fiber, and fuel systems to assist in feeding, clothing, and fueling their respective food sheds could have, especially in this economic climate. More farmers and ranchers could actually make a living from the land. Sustainability could permeate society, and small towns could return to being hubs of commerce, good jobs, and activity. Many of our rural areas could retain younger generations due to the positive impact on the local economy in relation to money and jobs. Suburban and urban populations could become reconnected to the land, grow in respect for their rural neighbors and have access to local, healthy sources for food, fiber, and fuel. According to the 2007 USDA Ag Census US Data, farm numbers increased by 3.6% farmed acres decreased slightly by 1.7%, market value of products increased dramatically by 47.8% probably due to corn-based ethanol and possibly organics, and alarmingly the number of full time farmers declined by 13% nationwide. Some of the full time farmer decline can probably be attributed to several things including farm consolidation, financing, retirement, and old age attrition. If we have this kind of farmer decline in the face close to record market value it concerns me. Who is going to raise our food in the future if we don’t get younger generations interested in farming? We need to be able to show them that a living can probably be made in farming if your mind is open to doing the alternative things that are desired by a growing public demand, and that you don’t have to be a mega-farmer or a gentlemen farmer with another high-paying professional day job to make a living on the land.

Did you know that for every dollar spent in a local business it turns over three times in that community before it leaves town? So for every $1000 spent in the local economy, it actually ends up being $3000. What a concept and an impact. Developing food sheds are just another grassroots example of a way to help solve our countries economic woes from the farm up not Washington D.C. down.

As is being noted in my series of articles, America must change it’s mindset towards food, embrace the ideas of local and sustainable, support local farmers and ranchers, and encourage young folks to seek out one of the most noble professions I can think of “working with the land and stewarding Creation.” With documentaries like “Food Inc.” and Oprah’s praise of a changing food system, I think that the cart has begun to swiftly roll down the right track. One of the greatest things a farmer can do in this current day and age to make a positive impact on America is to start using organic and sustainable practices, and make an effort to direct market products in some way either directly or through a co-op or business. One of the greatest things a food consumer can do in this day and age to make a positive impact on America is to support those farmers and ranchers. Truly “Going Green” will require “Going Local”. Besides it is just the responsible and patriotic thing to do whether you are American, Canadian, Argentinian, Indian, or English. Farm on!

At the end of January I was asked to speak at the Texas Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association (TOFGA) annual conference also known as the Texas Conference On Organic Productions Systems or TCOOPS . I was fortunate enough to be asked to do two talks, one about how we run our multi-species non-certified organic livestock farm and meat business, and one about my thoughts on how we need to pursue “Going Local” in our state and nation. I was also able to visit with several friends and make new ones as well as meet the distinguished editor of this growing magazine, Bob Funcannon. If you ever get a chance to go to one of these conferences as a producer or consumer I would encourage it. You get to network with many like-minded individuals and learn a lot about what is going on in Texas in the way of “natural systems” agriculture.

As many of you who read my articles on a regular basis know, I’ve been trying to incorporate the many thoughts I’ve had into discussions to spur people into new ideas and concepts. I was able to share thoughts and exchange discussions with 120+ like minded farmers or future farmers at TCOOPS. While there, I put together a chain of thoughts that tied into my “Going Local” talk. This article is an attempt to summarize the discussion on my first topic that dealt with defining “Local” . It is safe to say that this is now a movement many of us like to classify as “Going Local” or “Beyond Organic”.

For years the American farmer and rancher has been told to “get big our get out” and find another source of income. Of course, America only needs an industrial sized food system to feed it and the world. Entities such as the Farm Bureau, Land Grant Universities, and the USDA have been supporting this push, whether knowingly or not. Now more and more folks from farmers, to consumers, to companies are starting to recognize the errors and problems of an over-globalized, over-industrialized food and economic system, but the cause has a long way to go to be championed. Over my next several articles I’m going to expound on these issues. I’ve come to realize that the several topics that I discussed in my “Going Local” discussion at TCOOPS need some in-depth discussion time.

At my presentation, I basically got to get on my soapbox and talk about a lot of the thoughts and ideas that I’ve written about here in LNF. I was able to generate a more advanced set of thoughts on how we in the local and natural foods movement could advance our cause. This will need to be done through advocacy and education of the general public, current farmers, future farmers, and agricultural academicians so that a new locally based food, fiber, and energy economical system can develop here in the USA.

About 30 conference attendees sat in on my “Going Local” presentation. From this group I discovered that there are varying definitions of “local”, “sustainable”, “heritage”, and “food-shed” that are very person dependent. As I’ll try to explain, there is a lot of thought and diversity in a definition. The definition of “local” can range from within your neighborhood, to within your county of residence to 80 miles away, to half a days drive away, to the state of Texas, or to the Southern Region of the US. I think the best definition that I heard was that it depends on the product. For instance, pork should probably come from within 100 miles of where you live, but when speaking about oranges 500 miles might be “local”. Some folks even qualified it with living within season.

We then discussed the topic of “sustainable”. I went around the room engaging the audience of my presentation and asking folks what their definition of “sustainable” was. Some people defined it as “able to be repeated over and over again without depleting resource”, others as “providing a living wage while leaving their corner of the earth as good or better than they found it”, and still other folks said “Something that is economically, ecologically, and socially viable and responsible.” I personally liked the last definition, but they are all correct. So once again we see the diversity in different peoples preferred definitions.

I discovered that the word “heritage” holds a different meaning amongst folks as well. This was not unlike several of the other “word concepts” that I wanted people to define. For some “heritage” means it has a historical record or tie to the past. To others it just means “old-time” or like grandma used to do. While to still others it means a combination of the two or just a traditional.

“Food-shed” was a big topic in my discussion that created some comical relief. I asked some folks in the crowd, “What did they define as a food-shed?” One attendee said that “It was the place where he kept his pickles and other canned goods.” Hah, Hah! While others mentioned that “It was a geographic zone around a particular population that can or does supply a percentage of the populations food.” That would be quite correct. Most all population centers have a potential “food-shed” surrounding them, which could provide a large percentage of the food consumed in those areas making for a much more sustainable, less resource consumptive society. In my April article I will try to focus on this concept extensively and work to define some of the different food-sheds in Texas, in particular the DFW Metroplex Food-Shed.

The final concept that I wanted to discuss for better understanding before moving deeper into my talk was “Sustainable Capitalism” which is well defined in a book of the same name by Dr. John Ikerd, an Agricultural Economist who is now based out of the University of Missouri. It is what it says, “a capitalism that takes the ecology, the economy, and society into account in its operation toward sustainability.” I personally believe that it will eventually be a system that is key for America’s survival as a great nation rural, suburban, and urban alike.

The whole point of going through this exercise with these folks at the beginning of my presentation was to show people how diverse, and yet correct the definitions of these current buzz words in “natural systems” agriculture can be. It goes to show that people make interpretations differently, but that a common ground can be found. For example if you are a direct marketing farmer like myself, just be straight forward and tell your customers that you product comes from X-miles up the road. It can be a marketing tool. This lets potential customers decide if your product is “local” according to their own personal definition. Since our target market is in the DFW Metroplex, for our business this mileage is between 60 and 90 miles away (“local”) depending on which area of DFW that we are marketing into.

I hope that I’ve been able to convey how different people conceptualize definitions differently within “natural systems” agriculture. My point is that the buzz words should be defined with a stroke of common sense, yet be broad enough to include differing opinions while being narrow enough to maintain the integrity of the concept. Please stay ready to read the upcoming series of these articles over the coming months. I plan to discuss”food-sheds” and “food miles”, “sustainable capitalism”, “localism”, agricultural census statistics, problems “natural systems” farmers face, what is in the favor of the “Righteous Food” (I borrowed this term from Brad Stufflebeam, a young organic vegetable farmer in Washington County, Texas.) movement, the cost of local food, and what can be safely argued as what much of the public desires. I hope that I can keep you interested for the long term. You see, it is readers like yourself who will be the grassroots movement as customers or current and potential farmers. You will work to get your family, friends, and neighbors involved in the local food system and support local family farms producing “righteous food” like ours because you believe that what we are doing is just better. Farm on!

On one the coldest January nights in recent memory while rendering some pork fat into lard (we wanted to try using or own source of cooking grease), I began pondering the connection it seems that people subconsciously have with the land, or creation in general. It seems to me that deep down most of us may be pre-programmed to have a desire to develop a direct connection with God’s natural world. You may ask, what got me to pondering this issue, and how does that have anything to do with food and farming? Well I started thinking about this last month when I heard on NPR, that the two most popular online video games are on Facebook, an internet based social networking site. Then imagine my surprise, when I learned that these games both have to do with virtual farming. They are Farm Town and Farm Ville. In my mind, the implications of this has everything to do with food and farming. This shows that even folks who are some of the most disconnected from the land are desiring to cultivate, at least virtually, a direct connection with the land. Let me explain.

A few months ago, I had heard about one of these games, Farm Town, through one of my customers who buys bulk grass-only beef. I went over to their house last fall to do a delivery, and while there she started telling me about her virtual farm. She explained how some of her crops had failed, but that she was growing her farm slowly and was focused on diversifying her virtual livestock, just like we do on our actual farm. She even volunteered to give me a demonstration of how the virtual farm game worked, and mentioned that some days she had spent hours virtually farming. I thought this concept was very intriguing especially since she had been spending hours a day playing this game along with talking about it to her Facebook friends, but I didn’t think a lot about this again until I heard the blurb on NPR. Once I heard these statistics on the radio, I had to actually research these video games myself. I wanted to find out what they were and why they were so appealing that some folks would spend quality time interacting with these virtual internet games.

The following is the information that I found about these sites from Wikipedia, which seems to be a decent source for information like this. I’m basically quoting the online encyclopedias summary of these games. “Farm Town is a free, Flash-based browser multiplayer game for the social network platforms Facebook and Myspace. It is social media developed by software company Slashkey and launched in June 2009. The game version number is undisclosed, however updates have been made available every few months, and the current version as of November 20, 2009 has over 60 levels. As of December 15, 2009, there were 18,260,247 monthly users of Farm Town on Facebook alone.”

This is how Wikipedia describes Farm Ville on Facebook. “Farm Ville is a real-time farm simulation game developed by Zynga, available as an application on the social networking website Facebook. The game allows members of Facebook to manage a virtual farm by planting, growing, and harvesting virtual crops, trees, and livestock. Since its launch in June 2009, Farm Ville has become the most popular game application on Facebook with 72,015,037 active users as of December 11, 2009. Farm Ville started as a duplicate of the popular Farm Town on Facebook.”

In both of these games you start out with a minimal farm of so many acres, and you can do virtually whatever you want to with your virtual farm from crops to livestock over time as you sell off your harvests and put your “FarmCash” to use. Some of these game users are actually spending real money via Paypal to advance levels and purchase virtual infrastructure and virtual inputs, instead of just playing the game out overtime and using virtual harvest sales to do these activities. If these folks are spending real money on this virtual farm world, I wonder how many of them we could get to come out to an actual farm to buy their food, work in a CSA program, volunteer their homes as local food distribution points, or become interns or employees of direct marketing, local, sustainable farms. Wouldn’t it be awesome if direct marketing farmers could just tap 10% of this virtual farming interest as customers or potential sources of farm labor and local food activism. That small percentage would be over 8 million people. That is over 4 times as many people (potential customers) as there are farmers in the United States today. Granted quite a few of these users are outside the US, but still imagine the impact this would have. The internet truly has become a boon for local food and farming. What is happening today probably could not have happened 20 years ago. Direct marketing farmers like me probably should be thanking Farm Town and Farm Ville for what they are doing for local, responsible food production whether these companies know it or not.

In my opinion, this says that our modern society has a great draw to be connected to creation, the land, the animals, the plants, and where their food is originating. This reflects almost directly with what we are seeing in the societies of most first-world countries. More and more educated folks want to know where their food is coming from, what is going into it, who is raising it, and whether or not it is being produced in a responsible and sustainable manner. I believe that these online virtual farming video games and their popularity are telling farmers like myself that the time is ripe for direct marketing farmers, healthy, responsible food, and natural systems agriculture to come to the forefront of food, fiber, and possibly fuel production. The people, potential customers, are waiting. After all, how can you argue with over 80 million online gamers. I’m not sure how to use this to my benefit, but you can bet I’m going to be trying to figure it out. If you’re a direct marketing farmer, I’d encourage you to do the same. If you’re one of these gamers (aka: a consumer) I would encourage you to get involved with a real farm as well and support your local direct marketing farmers and ranchers. As farmers/ranchers, policy makers, and consumers let’s not drop the ball on the potential for the truly sustainable “Next Green Revolution.” Research this yourselves, you will see that I didn’t just manufacture these statistics. Farm On!

Recently, I saw the documentary film “Food, Inc.” I had previously heard a lot about it from some of our customers, and I had seen the previews. Even though I had some preconceptions about what I was going to see, and being the food farmer/activist that I am I thought I was educated on most of what the movie covered. However, I have to say that it was still an education for me as I watched it. It had some things in it that educated me and surprised me! I walked out of the viewing with some friends in a local organization that I’m involved in, angry at what the industrial food system and agriculture in the U.S. has become. For those of you who don’t know, this film covers many of the problems we are facing in the U.S. with our highly over-industrialized food system. It also gives an all too small glimpse into a pastoral, locally based, natural-systems agriculture that can provide bountiful, nourishing food to a public-base that is growing the demand every year. Now, industrial mainstream agriculture will tell you that to have a bountiful food supply we have to have the petroleum based mega-farm industrial monoculture three-crop system of corn, soybeans, and meat. However, folks who run farms like ours, direct marketers, market gardeners, and foundations devoted to teaching and research like Rodale Institute are disproving that mantra everyday.

Ever since I was in high school, fifteen years ago, I’ve tried to figure out why lot’s of people run down small-farming agriculture, and why agriculture has to based on large, industrial sized farms for farmers to make a living. In high school I was basically told in a round-about way, that farming is for people with low intelligence, minimal education, and no aspirations. Sports then academics, almost in that order, were the only way to go and achieve. I’ve finally come to a decision that I believe is the truth. My truth is, the only reason industrial large agriculture is profitable (Minimally to most farmers.) is due to cheap petroleum, publicly subsidized farming, and corporate control of modern agriculture.

Notice that I said profitable, but minimally. Without subsidies, I believe conventional industrial agriculture in the U.S. would have “to go the way of the DoDo”, because conventional farmers could only loose money for so long, and then they would have to quit. This in not a situation I would wish on any farmer or anyone. I would prefer American farmers be profitable in all they do, and that there were many more of us on farms. Instead many have been blinded by lots of people, politics, agricultural science in certain peoples best interests, and strategically placed dollars. Why do folks in mainstream agricultural circles find it so necessary to bicker with fellow farmers who are moving to the alternative. They continue to try to argue about whether the alternative is practical, profitable, sustainable, and works while they already have regulations, fuel prices, capital costs, and corporations against their own system. Shouldn’t farmers be supporting farmers, and helping with profitable, eco-friendly techniques, and idea sharing. Many alternative system farmers are making much more profit per acre or animal while providing a service to the environment. It really “chaps my hide” to see how alternative farmers like myself are looked down upon, and sometimes virtually out of town for doing things differently than Farmer Joe next door. If we could just get some of these friends, neighbors, students, and educators outside the box for a while, they might be able to actually see all the benefits that an alternative agricultural system can provide.

People really need to just get outside the vacuum for a few days, so they can have their heads cleared and actually see what is going on out there. A perfect example is what my wife recently experienced this week in her senior year of college Animal Science Livestock Management class. I will attempt to explain. This class is supposed to teach students standard livestock management techniques in a hands-on environment. Many agricultural students in college these days need this kind of hands-on exposure because they don’t have agricultural backgrounds. However, it would be nice if more of them were exposed to some alternative agricultural thinking as well as conventional.

At the end of the semester of Livestock Management, students are allowed to form groups of three to four for an end-of-the-semester presentation. Some groups are assigned cattle scenarios, others hogs, and still others horses or sheep scenarios. They are given a set number of farm acreage, animals, and assets in a theoretical scenario, but are asked to come up with a farm management plan showing inputs, outputs, animal management, and profit or loss. My wife picked a group with two other fairly open-minded female students with minimal agricultural background. They were given in their scenario 350 acres fenced with needed equipment and 50 head of whatever kind of cattle they desired. They decided to develop their scenario based on a true-to-life scenario that some of our friends in the grass-fed stocker/feeder cattle business currently participate in. My wife’s scenario is a scaled down version. They would grow out 50 head of steers and/or heifers purchased from a natural grass-fed cow/calf operation on grasses, legumes, and hay and sell them into the Whole Foods grass-fed beef program set up by the Grass-fed Livestock Alliance, while baling non-certified organic hay for sale to other operations on their surplus grass. In our part of the country you can figure on a need of 3 to 4 acres per cow, so on their assumed 350 acres this group would have quite a bit of extra forage while being stocked with only 50 head of cattle.

After spending a week doing research on this market, and putting a presentation together they gave their presentation on their scenario. My wife tells me it was one of the only presentations that showed all costs in a real world amount. They also explained their total gross and net incomes for a projected year in this business. They were able to show a $14,000 annual net income while other groups with a conventional cattle operation with all the chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and conventional sale-barn marketing figured in were able to show a maximum annual income of $6,000. My wife’s group was lambasted with questions from the instructor and other class members about their operation. The other groups in the class who didn’t think outside the box received minimal questions. My wife and her group were able to answer these questions intelligently with facts and figures within their presentation. However, the only thing that really bugged my wife about all of this, was when after the last cattle presentation, the $6,000 profit one, the instructor made a comment something like and I’m paraphrasing, “Very Good. Finally a cattle operation that is practical!” This infuriated my wife so much that she called me right after class to tell me of the events. This is about the most irritated that I’ve seen her after a college class. She told me that she almost stood up in the middle of class to ask how many students actually wanted to make a living or do make a living from their future or current agricultural situation without having to work off the farm. Of course many of those students will never really be directly involved in agriculture anyway, but you see her point. Why do agricultural academia, folks, and farmers working in conventional agriculture continue to deny the benefits of what thousands of natural/alternative farmers and research like the Rodale Institute is turning out? I just can’t figure this out.

For all those doubters that say organic/natural/sustainable agricultural systems can’t produce the quantity of food that a conventional chemical-intensive agriculture does, the Rodale Institute is showing in their system it virtually can. Their Farming Systems Trial (FST) has been in place for over 29 years comparing a conventional cropping system versus an organic cropping system. The FST is comparing three systems for grain production. One is a conventional 5-year rotation system typical of many farms across the Midwest, which is corn, soybeans, corn, corn, soybeans. It receives fertilizer and pesticide applications according to the recommendations provided by Pennsylvania State University. One is a livestock-based organic 5-year rotation system of corn, soybeans, corn silage, wheat, red clover and alfalfa hay, with aged cattle manure applied in the two corn years. The final system is a legume-based green-manure organic system designed around a 3-year rotation of hairy vetch/corn, rye/soybeans, and wheat. The two organic systems don’t receive chemical inputs for fertility, weed or pest control. The following quote was taken from a 2008 paper about Rodale’s FST results to date. “Now in its 28th year, the FST has compared conventional farming using Penn State Agronomy Guide input recommendations to both legume- and manure-based organic systems. Results have shown organic yields to be within 5 percent of conventional yields in most years and the organic systems outperforming the conventional system in years of extreme weather patterns such as drought.” (See http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/depts/NFfield_trials/0903/FST.shtmland http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/20080529/gw1) Just getting folks into an alternative environment where they can think outside the box and take a chance on experimentation outside the standard agricultural science can have a huge impact as Rodale is proving.

Can an alternative environment really make that much difference in thinking? Well, I have a perfect example. On our farm we raise hair sheep for meat production. We started with a flock of twelve St. Croix Hair Sheep in 2002, and have raised our own females ever since, only introducing new ram lines. I have become very fond of our sheep flock over the years because of the weed control and fertilizer service they provide for our pastures as well as their parasite resistance and high quality, flavorful lamb that they produce for our customers. I mention this to tell you about our bottle lamb turned grown pet sheep named Sue. Sue is a perfect example of what getting outside the old box, and thinking in an alternative environment can do for you. It can open up a door to an entirely different world! Supposedly, you can run a whole flock of sheep, with a large amount of flocking instinct, off a cliff. However, Sue proves that environment can have a major impact on the way an individual thinks. Sue will turn a year old in March, and she sleeps on our porches every night. This ewe thinks she is a dog, literally. Being separated from the sheep flock mentality, has taught her to think in a completely different way, and she is quite successful at it. She follows us and our dogs around like we are her flock, running, jumping, pawing, and even attempting to vocalize, sometimes, like one of our pet dogs. We tried when she was younger to leave her with the sheep flock, and she decided she wanted to be a yard dog-sheep. We couldn’t bring ourselves to force her to stay with the flock since she obviously loved growing up in the yard here at the house, and her personality begged for us to try an experiment. Now, we have a 110 pound, still growing, ewe that thinks she is a dog living in our yard, and on the back porch. Sue follows us around the pastures with the other dogs, comes when we call her by name, loves to be scratched on the belly particularly, and processes her thoughts differently than a lot of other sheep. You can just tell by how she acts and by looking at her face.

I mention all of this about Sue our yard dog-sheep, to illustrate a picture of how ways of thinking in agriculture could be changed if we just put ourselves outside of the flock ( or outside what everyone else thinks.) We’ve got to be creative as farmers and/or consumers if we are going to come up with a viable agriculture/food system alternative that can eventually overcome the negativity that comes from the conventional industrial system. We have to open all the “nay sayers” eyes to the benefits to creation, society, and the farmers pocketbook. If you haven’t started thinking differently lately whether it be because of money issues, health, environment, books, news, or a movie like “Food, Inc.”, now is a good time to start. FARM ON!

As those who read my articles on a regular basis know, I cover a lot of topics and thoughts here in this little section of the magazine that the publisher has so graciously given me. As I look back at them, it seems that I either use my space here to discuss what we are doing on our farm, or to vent about a topic or idea that has been in my head. This time I’m going to get a little philosophical on everyone. Recently, we have been faced with another round of issues on our farm including equipment breakdowns, the thousands of dollars in costs associated with that, and internet service issues that have added up to cost money. With all these things happening and having to spend large amounts of money almost every time we turn around, I sometimes wonder if the role that we’ve chosen to play in this world, to provide local food for North Texas, is all worth it. I also wonder if I will ever be truly satisfied with living, working, and marketing what our farm has to offer. Sometimes it seems like one step forward and two steps back! We ask ourselves, on a regular basis if this is what we should be doing, and deep down the answer continues to be that we are still truly satisfied. I don’t think we really would be happy deep down, if we were doing something else. I believe that we, as a society, will have to learn to be “Locally Satisfied” as the cost of living increases and we are pushed to living in a more efficient and less wasteful manner, due to energy price increases and deflated economies.

Dr. Wes Jackson at the The Land Institute in Salina, KS wrote a book several years ago called, “Becoming Native to This Place”. He goes through a brief history of the US, and then starts a long, well thought out and educated discussion on how we will have to learn to live “more” as a society with less. One of the major discussions of the book is how we will have to learn to work with nature in agricultural production to produce more with less intensive inputs. Many of the farms in the North Texas area are already on the learning curve to transitioning to this type of agriculture as a proactive and market driven measure. Our farm is one of these!

Many times my mind tends to wander, as I do chores around our farm. Thoughts such as where my family and I should take a small trip to get away, what I could do for recreation or entertainment outside the farm, or what conference I could be going to next to learn a new grassfed farming technique. However, as I’m doing these same chores I also think of how much our county and our farm has to offer in beauty and resources, and how I probably take a lot of our farm for granted. Even though since we own a farm we are always seeing everything we haven’t done or need to do, folks and customers that visit us tell us how nice or how pretty our farm is. I sometimes have a hard time telling folks “thank you” because I’m thinking about all the things that need to be done. Besides, when you live and work on a farm you sometimes forget about the recreational opportunities that we could be doing right here on our farm without ever having to leave. You don’t have to leave your house, farm, community, or county to actually participate in recreation. Just on our farm we can hunt, fish, crawfish, hike, bike, ride a horse, camp, practice photography, have a hay hauling contest, participate in sport shooting, swim, or any number of things that I’ve left out. As I work on our farm from day to day, I try to teach myself to be content with what I’m working on, where I’m working, and what I’m doing to try to make a living. God has blessed us even though I sometimes can’t see the forest for the trees. Again, I think farm folks like us tend to unintentionally take our farms and lifestyles for granted instead of taking them for their real value, and the importance our role has been and will be in feeding, fueling, and clothing people locally.

While we still have some time before we are forced to make some major decisions, we as North Texans and Southern Okies will have to become more satisfied with living locally and producing consumable products like food, fiber, and probably even fuel sources more locally. I recently watched a film called “The Power of Community”, which documented how the country of Cuba had to learn to become extremely self sufficient after the fall of the Soviet Union, their major supplier of energy, fertilizer, and food. They had to relearn how to small farm again, and did massive amounts of research on organic farming techniques and fertilizers. Since this major time of transition in the early 1990’s and even though they have had a major shift in lifestyle, the Cuban society maintains an average life-span and health that is as good as or better than many Americans. Also, farmers are now among the country’s highest paid workers, and the farming profession has professionals from other parts of society moving into farming because of this. The transition to a greatly different and possibly more rewarding way of life should be taken now before we have to go through five or more years of major discomfort like Cuba. Plus, us farmers, might start being important to American society while actually producing an income worth our salt with minimum debt.

I mentioned the book “Becoming Native to This Place” earlier. According to Dr. Jackson and others the transition will take creativity, know-how, knowledge, gumption, charity, cooperation, education, and sustainable capitalism. With this effort the payoff will be truly sustainable agriculture, society, environment, and economy. To accomplish this we also must become satisfied with living local. This will mean a resurgence in small creative businesses, productive direct marketing family farms, farmers markets, restaurants that source locally, sustainable energy production, local tourism, local vacations, and local economies. We will have to learn to enjoy what “local” has to offer. Instead of day dreaming about spending vacation time in Colorado, Williamsburg, Virginia, or some distant corner of Europe, we will have to learn to be content with staying in a rustic cabin at Lake Fannin, camping and fishing on Lake Davy Crockett or Coffee Mill in the Caddo National Grasslands, or driving the roads and byways of Texas and Oklahoma visiting historical sites, state parks, direct marketing farms, wineries, bed and breakfasts, and local restaurants serving locally produced food.

This “Local Lifestyle” will take some getting used to for most of us. However, it could be a truly sustainable, long term way of life that helps us cope with the loss of cheap energy and cheap fossil fuels. We could take this for a paradigm shift that will be good for America as a whole, or we can take it the negative route. I’d choose to take the high road and I hope that you will too. Please support this transition to local any way you have the opportunity. This would include buying locally produced fruits, vegetables and meat; staying in a locally owned bed & breakfast; driving through the countryside and visiting your local family farmers (It would probably be polite to call ahead.); and eating at locally owned restaurants. I would like to implore that all of the readers of this magazine and its articles start learning how to become “Locally Satisfied”. I’m trying to retrain my way of thinking so that I can be “Locally Satisfied.” I believe that American society will be better for it!

Sources for information to become more “Locally Satisfied”:
Local Harvest: www.localharvest.org
Go Texan Program: http://www.gotexan.org/gt/jumppage/0,1486,1670_0_0_0,00.html
Texoma Grown Directory: http://www.texomacore.org/Texoma-Grown-Directory.html
Eat Green DFW: http://www.eatgreendfw.com/
Cross Timbers Food Coop: http://www.crosstimberscoop.org/
Texas Association of Business and Chambers of Commerce: http://tabcc.org

Texas Bed & Breakfast Directory: http://www.bedandbreakfast.com/texas.html
Oklahoma Agritourism: http://www.oklahomaagritourism.com/
Oklahoma State Parks: http://www.touroklahoma.com/
Texas Parks & Wildlife: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/

In the past few months the farmers’ market season has crept upon us once again. For many direct marketing farm families like mine, the time from mid-April through October is the busiest time of the year. Not only are we having to prepare, plant, and harvest pastures, hay meadows, fields, and/or market gardens along with fencing, pasture rotations, feeding, record keeping, and animal health maintenance, we are devoting a lot of time to marketing our products. This can be at best highly rewarding, and at worst depressing depending on your level of sales. However, to see the smile on a satisfied customers face when they return to you market booth with praises about your products and how glad they are to have local farmers providing them with an option for local, healthy food, makes the busyness of the business all worthwhile. Sustainable farming and direct farm-to-consumer marketing finally seems to be coming into its own after thirty-plus years of pioneering hard work, activism by producers and consumers alike, and a desire to bring back much of the “GOOD PRACTICES” of the good ole’ days.

What I eluding to with these statements can be discovered in the recent agricultural statistics in the USA, and by what I currently see happening from my family’s experiences at farmers’ markets here in Texas. I don’t want to bore you too much with numbers, but bear with me a moment as I try to explain what I think is occurring.

Livestock production agriculture alone contributed $123 billion to the US economy in 2006, according to the US-GAO report GAO-07-592 dated July 6, 2007. This one sector of agriculture alone is a huge economic driver, especially when you factor in supporting industries such as feed, animal health, fencing, and equipment suppliers. According to the Texas Agricultural Statistics Service, Fannin County, Texas, where I farm, had a 2005 Agricultural Income of $67,483,000 and a 2006 Agricultural Income during a severe drought of $48,915,600. The 2-year average of these typical and non-typical years was $58,199,300. No other private industry in Fannin County, Texas supplies this kind of revenue. These numbers prove a point, that agriculture is still a huge driver for the American economy, regardless of what some people think about America being strictly economically based on urban and suburban area business. According to the 2007 USDA Ag Census US Data: Total Farm Numbers were up by 3.6%; Total Farmed Acres went down by 1.7%; Total Market Value of products increased 47.8%; and the Number of Full Time Farmers decreased by 13%. According to the 2007 USDA Ag Census DFW Metroplex Area Data: Total Farm Numbers increased 6.8%; Total Farmed Acres increased 3.6%; Total Market Value of products increased 57.5%; and the Total Number of Full Time Farmers decreased by 12%. The USDA conducts a farm census every seven years to keep up with agricultural trends, and to provide statistics to Congress when it is time for farm legislation. So these increases or decreases are based on the 2007 data versus the 2000 data. Other 2007 USDA Ag Census Data indicates that not only are farm numbers up, but it seems that organic/sustainable (non-conventional) farm numbers continue to increase. In fact they recorded over 20,000 farms nation wide engaged in organic/sustainable production. Because of this significance, the USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service has commissioned a Census of Organic Production for the first time in history.

These figures seem to be saying a few things. That smaller farms and value-added agriculture must be on the rise because farmed acreage is down while farm numbers are up and market value of products is up around 50% on average. This probably means that, yes, production per acre has increased due to better practices, genetics, or more inputs, but also the types of products being produced must be of higher value, meaning niche market, sustainably or organically produced and the like. So to really explain such a market value explosion in seven years, we almost have to assume that niche-products and valued added products are playing significant roles in our country’s food and economic systems. The increase can’t all be explained away with increased yields or inflation. Also, there seems to be a trend towards less full-time farmers and more part-time farmers. From what I know about many part-timers, they are highly interested in sustainable and/or organic practices.

Not only is this type of product production up, but it seems that the demand is increasing by the month as consumers become more educated and concerned about their food supply. Not knowing what is in the food that is being consumed, as well as being concerned about where food is being sourced, or what type of carbon foot-print the food being consumed has is becoming more and more of an issue for folks. Consumers are longing for a return to a connection with the land, their food, and who produces it. This brings me to the real reason I sat down to write this article, farmers’ markets in Texas.

At one point in time around 100 years ago, almost every county seat and major town in Texas probably had at least one farmers’ market. Folks would come from miles around to bring their products from eggs, milk, butter, bacon, and salt pork, to carrots, onions, pumpkins, and melons to the town-square or market center to sell, share news, and socialize directly with patrons as well as folks who might be running the local corner groceries. This probably occurred throughout the US. Customers knew the farmers by name and vice versa. From what I know about the my county’s agricultural history, this went on up until sometime about 1960 and then fell completely out of favor. Folks probably got caught up in the thrill, gadgetry, and sometimes fear of going to the moon, “modernizing” everything in sight, and the “Cold War”, respectively. Thus busyness ensued and they forgot about supporting their local food system. Many of the same stories could probably be told where many of you live. The Dallas Farmers’ Market is one of the oldest continuously run markets in the US, but it was one of the only ones in this part of Texas up until about the past seven years. In fact up until May of this year our county, a county that is rural and heavily dependent on agriculture for its economy, has probably not had one official farmers’ market in well over 30 years. Much of what is produced here, leaves here. My family is one of the few producing products to be sold and consumed locally!! It could probably be said, that if we had to rely on local food to survive, it would not be a pretty site.

Oh, but times are a changin’, and there is Good News, as the Gospels would say! This is where I finally get to the point of my article. As many of you know by now, I can get slightly long winded as I try to bring perspective to the points of my articles. Let’s face it, as a Texan, I am a little bit begrudging to change. However, it seems that the time has finally arrived for farmers’ markets, on-farm markets, pick-your-owns, food coops, and community supported agriculture (CSA’s or farm shares) to meet the daily increasing demands of a yearning public who wants the farm-to-consumer-to-fork experience, whether it be for economical, societal, nutritional, or all of the above concerns. In the DFW Metroplex area alone, there has been an increase in farmers’ markets over the past seven years from 2 or 3 to nearing 20 as I write. I know of 5 new markets that have come on-line this year in the DFW Metroplex, and I can speak to at least three more that have started or will be starting in counties outside the Metroplex proper. One being in our “lowly ole’ Fannin county”, as some outsiders might presume to call us country bumpkins. Farmers’ markets and these other ways of providing your family with local foods and products, can make a huge difference in your families health, nutrition, and quality of life while having a positive impact on the local economy in these times of foreclosures, layoffs, and American corporate bankruptcies.

I’m going to try to wrap this up so that I have room to leave you some references for finding out more about locations to get involved with the Farm-to-Fork movement. Below is a list of ways that you can find out more about selling, finding, and/or purchasing local food. I encourage all of the readers to get involved whether you be producer or consumer.

Until next month, Farm On!!

Resources for marketing or purchasing local food on the Web:
http://www.crosstimberscoop.org/
http://www.eatgreendfw.com/home/
http://www.localharvest.org/
http://www.texomacore.org/
http://www.eatwild.com
http://www.picktexas.com/farm_market/farmers_market2.htm

http://www.town-mall.net/mall/farmersmarket.html

Book Resources:

“The New Farmers’ Market” By: Vance Corum, Marcie Rosenzweig & Eric Gibson
Copyright 2001, New World Publishing, Auburn, CA

How to Direct Market Your Beef” By: Jan Holder
Copyright 2005, Sustainable Agricultural Network, Beltsville, MD

By:  Nathan B. Melson, MS Agricultural Sciences

Sloans Creek Farm, Dodd City, TX

(To Be Published in Living Natural First Magazine.)

For years in Fannin County, TX most people wouldn’t even think about raising sheep on their farms.  “We are a cattle, hay, and grain county in Northeast Texas, sheep ruin pastures”, to paraphrase what some people might say or think.  Agriculture still forms the base of the main industry in our county.  However, the times they are a changing, at least for one long time family farm, the one I own and operate.  For several years I thought our farm was going to make it raising Angus cattle, wheat, and sorghum-sudan hay.  However, when my grandpa turned the farm over to my mother and dad and then my dad passed away, my mother, sister, and I quickly saw that this type of set up wasn’t going to work and help pay the bills.   I had been taught to rely on the traditional agricultural paradigm, even though I had a lot of questions.  We had never done everything the modern agricultural paradigm recommended, anyway.  As I entered college to study Animal and Plant Science, my mother and I looked into our desire to do things differently.   We wanted and actually required lower-input and better return on investment, whether that be on money or labor.  We decided that we were going to have to become grass farmers.  This meant using livestock as our harvesting tools, instead of us being livestock farmers just managing some grass.  With this change in thought we would implement changes over the next 10 years that would change our farm dramatically.  It still is changing our farm.  What we did, would have been frowned upon by most agricultural producers in the area.  Many of you have read about our experiences and philosophies in the past several issues of Living Natural First.  We are slowly becoming a success story along with numerous family farms across the country, that have found the benefits of multi-species grass farming.

As many of you that have been keeping up with my writings in this publication know, we currently operate our farm raising Red Poll, Irish Dexter, and Murray Grey cattle; Red Wattle Hogs; St. Croix Hair Sheep, and Myotonic Meat Goats.  However in 2002, we had been looking for a sheep breed to incorporate into our Red Poll cattle and meat goat operation.  We had been moving our farm, on the Northern portion of the Blacklands of Texas, towards a grass farming system.  Our agenda was to move the farm towards a system that somewhat mimics the old tallgrass prairie system of diverse large herbivores.  Our farm is probably 50% native forage species, and we have replanted 52 acres of tallgrass, mixed-grass species while working to replant another 50 acres.  Cattle are grazers and goats are browsers.  This followed well with the old system of Bison (grazers) and Whitetail Deer (browsers), but we were leaving out the antelope and elk (The species that probably preferred a mix of forbs and grass.)  Sheep tend to fit this role in domestic livestock species, but we didn’t want to shear sheep nor did we have the time.  We also wanted to minimize parasite problems because we were trying to keep our farm non-certified organic.  After doing some research, we learned of the hair sheep breeds.  These include the Katahdin, the St. Croix, the Black-Belly Barbado, and the Dorper.  Each breed has its benefits and drawbacks.  We thought that hair sheep would perhaps be a way around the shearing issue.  The St. Croix seemed like a natural fit because of their characteristics and our farm goals.  Our farm goals are: A) To maintain heritage livestock breeds in a low-input, sustainable, non-certified organic grass farm environment for meat and registered stock production; B) To be able to show how heritage breeds can be a major part in keeping a family farm viable; C) To make a living from our farm.

The St. Croix Hair Sheep has now become an important fixture on our family grass farm.  We purchased our small flock of 12 ewes and one ram in the fall of 2002.  As of this writing in May 2009 we have forty-five ewes, thirty-five lambs on the ground, one breeding ram and around 10 wethers ready for processing.   We have raised all of the ewes from our original flock by rotating in new rams with differing pedigrees, and have sold and/or processed culls and some breeding animals along the way.  The history and attributes of the St. Croix are quite interesting, and I’ll do my best to cover the subject with some interesting notes about the other hair sheep breeds.

The St. Croix Hair Sheep is a unique heritage breed of sheep that seems to readily fit into grassfed production. When hair sheep are grassfed, the meat is generally tender and mild flavored compared to most wool sheep breeds with all the benefits of grassfed lamb. Grassfed meats tend to be lower in fat, calories, and cholesterol than grainfed meats.  Grassfed meats also tend to be higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), and omega-3 fatty acids than grainfed meats.  More and more consumers seem to prefer hair sheep meat to wool sheep because of the milder flavor.

The St. Croix Hair Sheep breed is unique to the U.S., particularly on the island of St. Croix in the Caribbean. St. Croix happens to be one of the U.S. Virgin Islands.  The breed is believed to have descended from the hair sheep of West, brought to the islands by Spaniards. Africa.  Most hair sheep except for the wild sheep of the world and perhaps the Wiltshire Horned of England are believed to have African origins. There are some people who think that it is a cross with the Wiltshire Horned, brought in by the English to the islands, and the naturalized Criollo sheep, which would have descended from those hair sheep of West Africa.  Both sexes are polled (a management benefit), and rams generally have a large distinguishing throat ruff or mane.  The St. Croix Hair Sheep International Association generally accepts solid white as the registered color.  However, spots of brown, black, or tan do occur, but can’t be registered currently.

In 1975, twenty-five St. Croix Hair Sheep, 22 ewes and 3 rams, were selected in St. Croix and imported into the U.S. by Dr. W. C. Foote of Utah State University.  There were no pedigree records available on the animals. The selection criteria were white color, lack of wool, acceptable body size, and good conformation.  These sheep are pretty much the basis of the present St. Croix breed on the U.S. mainland, although there may have been a few very limited importations in the past 8 to 10 years.  As purebred numbers increased animals were released to private farms.  Purebred lines are still being maintained, and this is critical due to relatively low breeding numbers and the amount of crossbreeding that is occurring.  Utah State University and the USDA-Agricultural Research Service maintain flocks today for production and research purposes.  The St. Croix could be considered a medium-small sized sheep.  The size of the ewes average 120 pounds, while the rams average 165 pounds.  However ewes can reach 150 lbs and rams can reach 200 lbs.  St. Croix ewe’s lambs show high fertility at 6-7 months of age.  Lambing rates tend to be on the average of 2 lambs per lambing, while easily achieving 3 lambings every 2 years.  Some producers do get two lambings per year, but we don’t like to push our grassfed flock quite that hard.  St. Croix sheep are being used in production and cross breeding programs in Utah, California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Illinois, Arkansas, Oregon, Oklahoma and Ohio.

The St. Croix breed has been shaped by natural and human selection.  As a result, they are climate adapted, fertile, and excellent foragers, which allows for their adaptability to low-input grassfed production.  Researchers in studies at several different universities have documented exceptional parasite resistance, compared to most wool sheep breeds.   This parasite resistance continues to be documented just as in the Gulf Coast Native, a very parasite resistant wool breed.  While St. Croix sheep can withstand high heat and humidity better than most European sheep breeds, they have adapted to variable climatic conditions in many parts of the country. When used in colder areas they produce a very heavy winter coat of mixed wool and hair that is shed in the spring.   This is a benefit to the sheep on most of the North American Continent.  The Katahdin, due to the influence of St. Croix in it’s breeding, and the Black-Belly Barbado due to its Carribean Island origins, have similar characteristics, although the level or parasite resistance still needs to be documented.

The beneficial characteristics of the St. Croix include docility, calmness, excellent maternal instincts, and good flocking instincts.  These sheep are pretty easy keepers as long as they have water and adequate forage to meet their requirements.  No docking is required, because the tail hair does not trap fecal matter around the anus like many wool breeds.  Foot rot resistance is another important characteristic for producers in the humid Southeast portion of the US.  The polled characteristic is also handy in management.  Quick lamb growth during the first four-months after birthing has been anecdotally noted by several producers.  Two other things should be mentioned here.  As of 1999, the USDA-APHIS had never documented a case of Scrapie in the St. Croix breed.  To our knowledge there has never been a case documented in any of the hair sheep breeds.  In this day of animal disease concern, control, and implications on human health, this is a very important note.  The St. Croix breed’s positive traits address many of the production problems experienced in sheep production, and this would seem to make them a candidate for agriculturalists interested in sheep production.  Besides, the demand for grassfed, healthy American lamb far outstrips the supply.  As is the case, hair sheep still seem to be either unknown or not quite large enough for many producers.  They generally take a little longer to reach 100-pound slaughter weights than many other more mainstream sheep breeds, but the upside to this is that they can do it on adequate, well-managed forage.

The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy Lists St. Croix Hair Sheep in the Threatened category of the Conservation Priority List, with fewer than 1000 annual registries.  The Black-Belly and the Katahdin are also listed.  St. Croix Hair Sheep are truly a unique American and Caribbean breed.  Current registrations in the St. Croix Hair Sheep International are probably above 400 registrations in North America per year.  Although, less than 5000 sheep exist in the global population.  Currently the demand for healthful grassfed lamb is growing.  However for the St. Croix breed, the breed numbers are low and grassfed production of St. Croix’s is even lower, despite the breed being particularly adapted to this type of production system.

The St. Croix has been used in several composite hair sheep breeds because of its favorable characteristics and its potential to produce hybrid vigor.  The “DorpCroix”, “Royal White”, and “Katahdin” are all crossbred or composite breeds that contain a percentage of St. Croix in them mainly to increase parasite resistance, improve the “hair” characteristic of the sheep, and/or add the genetic tendency for white color.  In fact the original importation of St. Croix sheep occurred in the 1950s when Michael Piel of Maine was developing the Katahdin breed.  However, that flock was not maintained because of the crossbreeding.  The importance of maintaining purebred St. Croix sheep and the other breeds of unique hair sheep for genetic resource and for production cannot be overstated.  On our farm we don’t practices a lot of crossbreeding with any of our breeds, although it has its place.  We prefer to learn how to use the breeds that we have, but continue to keep our minds open to how crossbreeding might play a role on our farm in the future.  Consistency is hard to maintain in crossbreeding, especially beyond the F1 cross, and we prefer to raise our replacement females.

As of late, more and more producers seem to be interested in the St. Croix.  Currently, we see a trend by Katahdin breeders, especially the commercial producers, to use St. Croix rams on their stock for increased parasite resistance.  Because the herd books for Katahdins’ are still open, and because the genetic base for the Katahdin still has some drift, many producers want to take the opportunity to add more St. Croix blood into their herds.  We think the market will continue to grow for a while.  We would like to see some of these breeders keep their own registered St. Croix flocks.  As mentioned the parasite resistance has been documented by research studies, and our flock hasn’t received chemical anthelmintics (dewormers) in over six years.  We use certain mineral supplements, liquid supplements, and other management practices for parasite control.  So this characteristic will work for producers, given management is adequate and chemical deworming is limited.

We encourage people who are seeking to move to grass farming to consider some type of rotational, multi-species system if they are willing to do so.  There are so many benefits that can be obtained if the system is adapted to the specific farm environment.  These include more animal production per acre, better forage management, parasite management, healthier plants, and healthier animals, and maybe even healthier people.

Grass-based production when done correctly allows for healthier animals in many cases.  Grassfed hair sheep production is currently rare and unique, especially in the St. Croix breed.  Encouraging lamb consumers to purchase grassfed hair sheep lamb because of its quality, taste, and the breed it helps promote could be critical in seeing the St. Croix and other hair sheep breeds proliferate on family farms, where they are adapted, across the country.  Can hair sheep play a role in your grazing operation?  I don’t know.  However, if your willing to experiment, as all graziers probably should be, We’d encourage you to do some research, and maybe contact a hair sheep breeder to try a few in your grazing system.  If they work for you then great, if they don’t, then maybe there is something else that would.

Yes, some of our neighbors think we are crazy, but that is alright if what we’re doing is something that will help keep our family on the farm.   American agriculture as a whole must move this way, the sustainable, holistic way, if we are to move our country as a whole towards economic, social, and environmental sustainability.  I think this is what the Good Lord would have us do, and I know it is what our forefathers would want.  Benjamin Franklin once said, “There are three ways a nation can become wealthy.  It can make war and take the wealth of another by force.  It can trade freely and make a profit by cheating.  Or it can profit through agriculture, whereby planting a seed we create new wealth as if by a miracle.”

St. Croix Hair Sheep are helping us keep our farm on the track towards sustainability.  We hope to reach it in a few more years while providing a unique product, and a unique service.  There is a niche for St. Croix Hair Sheep on a farm in Fannin County, TX, what about yours?  Farm On!!

Information Sources Include:

The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, http://www.albc-usa.org

Rare Breeds Survival Trust,

http://www.rare-breeds.com/html/rare_breeds/cattle/vulnerable/red_poll.html

St. Croix Hair Sheep International, http://www.stcroixsheep.org

The Oklahoma State University, Dept. of Animal Science, Livestock Breeds Database, http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/

Eatwild.com, http://www.eatwild.com

Dohner, J.V.  2001.  The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock Breeds. P. 151.  Yale University Press.