[Carl Russell]

I follow Jay’s appraisal. While shortening the back straps, lengthen the hip-drops so that the spider can sit atop the rump. There is a flat hollow at the end of the spine where you can almost see it is made to fit. Britchen should not follow to that height so the drops will have to be lengthened. The current location of the britchen is not bad, but could come up a couple of inches.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Lane this looks like something worth checking out. I have forwarder it on to a few folks I know. I hope it works out for you.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Good points all around, and I know Erik, you have been putting a lot of time into this ine of thought and reasoning.

On our farm we have our residence off grid with a small solar array (1000w) and a small wind turbine (1000w), but our greatest gains are in conservation, which I’ll get back too.

The farm shop and our freezers are attached to my mother’s residence where the grid ends.

The small power system that we have was installed by me, which cut the cost by at least 1/2. There is no way that we could have financially justified it any other way. The caveat is that we would have to had installed about 8 new poles to get to the home, so the comparable costs were astounding.

We have the luxury of gravity feed water… a huge savings. We just got NRCS cost-share funds to redevelop an old dug well to establish gravity-feed for all of our pastures, getting the animals out of the streams, eliminating the truck use to carry a water tank, and improving the effectiveness of our grazing system.

Water on a farm is a huge cost, especially if it has to be pumped. Electrical motors suck for efficient use of power, so investment in gravity systems, catchment systems, cisterns, water towers with wind powered or solar powered pumps, are all very cost-effective valuable for the long-term.

Also another big key to the formula as I see it is scale. Cheap energy has given one person the ability to mechanize so many aspects of farming, and living for that matter, so that to look at farming in the modern context it seems to require huge energy inputs. It will take some time to see the alternative clearly on each farm, but one major key to successful use of animal power is appropriate use of the power. Grazing systems is a good example.. employ the animals to build soil and harvest feed themselves.

Another way we make scale work for us, is that we concentrate on raising what we need for ourselves, plus a little extra, reducing the market down-pressure that would be pressed on large amounts of hard-earned products, and freeing up our time to earn income from professional pursuits, which are far more lucrative at this time. I know Eriks bakery and kitchen are developed to not only ad value, but to also give them access to a market where there is a potential for higher return.

Finding ways to incorporate in the farm structure time for, or production capacity for, higher end income runs contrary to the modern specialized farming model, but I really feel it is necessary. If we continue to expect our land to support our modern lifestyles we will just continue to deplete those reserves. Implementing ways to bring income onto the farm to offset the market demand not only makes our lives more affordable, it protects our lands to produce within their capacity, supporting the long-term sustainability of whatever farming system we develop.

I am just as guilty with the ball game trips, or running down to local restaurants to get pig and poultry food. It is frustrating, but I also feel like I am floating along with this wave, and will take advantage of some of this as I try to maintain some appearance of normality, for my kids sake.(25 years ago when I started using horses, raising my own food, slaughtering on farm, using hand tools, and developing a conservation lifestyle, I was the butt of many snide comments from locals who remembered how their had made the modern transition, seeing my efforts as insulting to their own lifestyle changes. Now people are seeking us out to learn from us…. because we keep building, and improving).

I recently got a book that looks back 100 years to the hayday of horse-power in USA. A remarkable aspect to every picture is the number of people working. There are many aspects to this discussion that point to cultural changes, and this piece is a huge one. Conservation requires personal investment, either in building and maintaining the replacement systems, or in personal participation driving animals or laboring.

I have found great personal reward knowing how I am physically involved in the production and application of my life. It has sustained me. As we move forward I realize that most people don’t want to know the details of every aspect of their needs, the wiring, the mechanics, the guts and blood, nor do they want to exert themselves to cover all those bases. This is fine, but I feel like in my life these things have also helped me to determine scale. I can really only cover so many bases well. My choice has been to find the bases that I NEED to cover, and stick with them. Everything beyond that requires significant thought and consideration.

I truly feel we will never be able to find energy sources to supply our current needs. I think we need to stop looking at how to power up our lives and start looking at how to power down our lives.

Make do, and do without.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

goodcompanion;26989 wrote:

…. I would still use a forecart and a harrow myself, but this is a risk……

I always say “Safety is a function of the degree of risk you are comfortable with”!:eek::D

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I think it has a lot to do with the way the forecart is made, and what kind of seat is on there.

I agree that the Pioneer and Forest Manufacturing designs with tractor seats, basically hanging back off of the cart can be problematic.

Again with the Barden Cart….. If the cart is designed to allow the teamster to stand with a dash board to lean forward on, and outfitted with a bench seat that has a secure back rest, then it is far superior than the ride-on equipment.

I have hauled rakes, tedders, disc harrows, spring-tooth and chain harrows, logs, wagons, and sundry farm equipment for 25+ years, and can honestly say that I have only fallen off a cart 5 times…. all in the woods, never with equipment behind. Both carts I have are built as I described above, with room to stand, and bench seats (School bus seats).

I have fallen off of the seat on a sulky plow, and riding cultivators several times.

I would also posit that the forecart allows us to use equipment that is newer than that which Steven describes, and typically doesn’t have seats.

The worst accident I have ever had was walking next to spring-tooth harrows because I thought it foolish to drag them behind a cart.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Ixy;26952 wrote:

….
What I don’t understand is why the model in Charley’s example wouldn’t work on 1000 acres, if the person who owned it could find enough people to work each little patch. …..

This is the point. You say you don’t want to see a cultural change, but until there are people inclined to participate in this model, it is just a cerebral exercise.

And the question of scale in terms of area is not the point. As I have said, the question of scale is the degree of inputs and requirements. What is missing is an acceptance that in modern terms, right or wrong, the “large scale” of farming is tied to a set of methods, and not to the area, nor to the number of animals used.

I think we can agree on the point that to survive we need to feed our communities. It is a question of how many in each community contribute to that production. Right now we are all contributing by accepting the environmental and personal impacts of a system rife with problems.

It is easy to see a 1000 head mobstock operation using animal power. Now we are going to raise potatoes too, and other row groups presumably. How about some fruit orchards? Oh, and feed for the working livestock. To do this, especially with the landscape in the condition it is now, we will have to do to remedial work to infrastructure to facilitate that, requiring the moving of soil, stone, lumber etc.

Easy-peasy? No. Cultural change? Yes

And don’t get me wrong, I am right here ready to participate. I have close to thirty years under my belt working in this direction. The gaps in the landscape are filling in one young or novice teamster at a time. But I am still convinced that the discussion has to start at the small-scale and move toward larger.

Thanks, Carl

[Carl Russell]

Ixy;26906 wrote:

…. If we had a thousand head of cattle, we would be a ‘big’ farm in the UK. We could easily use draft animals in that kind of a system to replace what little tractorwork we do.

Really? And you are sure of that?

It is very easy to say these things, much different to pull it off, day after day, for years and generations.

I agree that it can be done, but by you and what army? Philosophically it seems like a snap, but to do it we need a cultural shift, with enough folks to fill in the gaps.

If we keep saying “it can be done, it’s a snap”, then we will lose more than we will ever gain, because it really isn’t that easy…. and people know that.

‘Scale’ is a silly obsession I think, which is a neat distraction from other more pressing issue like HOW we are farming, however big or small the farm is. Like the notion we ‘need’ big farms to feed lots of people…

Which is exactly the point. In modern terminology “Farming” is “Big”. Anything less is not really farming (as far as the general public are concerned…readers of the NY Times). And “Big” “Farming” incorporates so much mechanical- and power-dependent processes that define its very existence that as we build the animal-powered future we must make the distinction. We SHOULD be considering Mob-Stocking, and other methods that are less energy-dependent for many reasons beside just the practical application of animal-power.

So by default, I think that mentioning that these methods are used at all, and that they are actually used to practical purposes on “Small Farms”, advances our cause by highlighting the use of animals, AND by illuminating the concept that there is such a thing as “Small Farming” in today’s culture, and that the people doing it take themselves seriously.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

So back to the discussion for a moment.

I guess I still think it is important to understand the difference between farming on a large scale with animal-power, and large-scale farming with animal-power.

There is no doubt that animal-power can be used to cover huge tracts of productive land. It has been done, and will be done again.

However, when taken in the modern context, are we talking plowing hundreds of acres, planting corn, chopping corn and haylage, spreading liquid manure, to support mega-farms of industrial production?

And if so, why?:confused:

It really makes no sense on a large scale to simply import draft-animals for motive power when so much of modern farming is created around the use of the internal combustion motor, hydraulics, and power-take-off.

In this context, I think it entirely appropriate to make a distinction. In the current paradigm small-scale farming is the only reality for draft animal power.

If we are talking about rebuilding communities where many people work to support each other using personal skills and local natural resources to sustain an approach to the land on a landscape-scale, then YES, by all means lets promote that.

Just let’s be real, that in the minds of MOST modern human beings, this is a fairy-tale. Actually more of a falsehood.

We need to prove that animal-power can be successful on the small-scale in modern times before we can attract enough people who will be willing to work toward that lofty, and admittedly necessary, goal.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Ixy;26866 wrote:

big farming has always been around – monks here were farming 6,000acres in 1130-1538 at Rievaulx abbey.

Nonetheless they farmed as a community, not as a distinct individual enterprise. To use large areas to produce for many people using animals is certainly a possibility, but the scale of operation for each person involved would be on a human level.

I think the distinction in the article is purely one of modesty by those being interviewed. Firstly, so that people reading don’t get the idea that the farm products they are buying are coming from animal-powered farms, and secondly so that they don’t get accused of misleading consumers about our modern food production systems.

The truth of the matter as we stand today, there aren’t enough teamsters, nor animals within any particular area to actually perform the tasks in any way other than on a small-scale basis…. and it will probably be like that for a few generations to come, with the exception of a few communities here and there that get the ball rolling.

Thanks for sharing this Erika, Carl

[Carl Russell]

The foundations of your information are misplaced. RV is very much in the development stages of a town-to-town campaign to establish local ordinances similar to those used in Maine.

We are not seriously considering how to work WITH VAA nor USDA. Nearly the entire board is frustrated with the regulatory approach, and we are committed to developing a social change.

The problem with building coalitions is in deciding which perspective addresses the issue most directly. Even Mr. St. Peter is hesitant to endorse the 10th amendment strategy, as it doesn’t really address the issue of traditional community food systems.

Many of us also question the effectiveness of any change based on formal governance. We are considering ways to encourage and enliven a movement within communities to support the hidden, currently illegal, food economy, and to break the regulatory obstacles with shear numbers of people throwing off the shackles of the fraudulent bureaucracy.

RV seems to be gaining an undeserved reputation, and is the new whipping boy. We did not work with VAA on the Raw Dairy Class resolution. We resisted three attempts at new language. The perpetrator Dan Scruton was back-roomed, and eventually the proposed language, which RV did not support nor fight against was dropped, and soon it will be entirely legal for us to resume the classes as before. The only change will be that now the onus will not be on the farmer if the consumers of raw milk choose to do other than drink it. This is a win-win, and there was no cow-towing, nor caving, and a significant majority of the board insisted on this.

You should have come to the annual meeting on Wednesday night, as all of this was covered. In fact Bob St. Peter visited here on Thursday, and RV is very much in alliance with his group. RV is also meeting with the VT Coalition of for Food Sovereignty on Monday to discuss mutual strategies.

I would suggest checking with those in the know before forwarding rumor and hearsay.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Brad, Pam Stafford is probably worth the wait, and others in the area are probably too busy too..

However, I don’t think it would be a bad thing to check on availability of a few others, just in case her schedule gets off track.

Obviously, don’t put a lot of effort into it either way, Carl

[Carl Russell]

near horse;26704 wrote:

….

Carl, I’m hearing “shovels and rakes and other implements of destruction”.

I don’t want a pickle…. I just want to ride my motorcicle,
And I don’t want to die…. I just want to ride my motorcy…cle…

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Yeah, Randy is my nemesis. He just loves to try to make VAA look so reasonable, like they aren’t trying to work against us.

As far as the building, it has to be at least $3000 with concrete floors, washable walls, and some kind of acceptable septic system. They take no responsibility for how that will affect the scale of production.

We had 19 piglets last year, and all 17 that we sold went to folks raising food for themselves. The thing is, they all bought at least two, with the expectation to keep one for their family while selling the other. These animals were all killed by itinerant slaughterers and taken to custom butcher shops.

There is no way that producers like this will build a killing room. If I built one for my own use, I cannot let those folks use mine, as then the animals are killed off-farm, and have to go through an inspected facility. Otherwise several of us could invest in such a structure, and maybe make it work.

To say “there seems to be a general lack of understanding of sanitation principles and dressing procedures among small farmers.” is just plain misrepresentation of fact. While probably easily swallowed by some of the general public, there is a growing number of folks who know this to be untrue, and they are more distrusting of industrial Ag than of their neighbors.

Randy is actually a pretty reasonable guy, but this is his opportunity to join the effort, and to tell you the truth, I think he is just going to go down swinging. He has been working too long in an agency that is stuck in the tar-pits of the expansion of industrial ag. A few generation from now we will find their fossilized remains and wonder how did they ever survive for as long as they did?

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Meat Producers Want ‘Sovereignty’ over Sales

2011-04-28 / People
By Josey Hastings

It may come as a surprise to some Vermonters to discover that they cannot, legally, buy pork or beef from the farmer up the road who has raised and slaughtered his or her animals on the farm.

As the local food movement grows in Vermont, both farmers and consumers are running up against many of these kinds of regulatory limitations.

In the case of meat sales, farmers are required to bring their live animals to a state-inspected slaughterhouse if they want to sell any of the meat to neighbors or friends, not to mention stores. While this is an acceptable arrangement for some farmers, others, such as Carl Russell of Earthwise Farm and Forest, feel strongly about slaughtering their own animals on the farm.

Russell’s farm is run by hand and horsepower, and he raises his animals with a sense of deep commitment and caring. In describing his relationship with his animals, Russell tells the story of finding a very cold, new-born Jersey bull in a rain-filled ditch in the early dawn. The calf’s mother had struggled in labor, sliding under a fenceline and down an embankment, to end on her back in the ditch where, unable to right herself, she dropped the calf in the cold flow of spring run-off.

Russell got both calf and mother back to the barn where the cow collapsed in exhaustion. He warmed, dried, and bottle-fed the new calf, which two seasons later he slaughtered to feed his family. This intimate level of connection with animals and with one’s own food is rather unique in today’s predominantly large-scale agricultural world, and it is this connection that Russell wishes to maintain by taking responsibility for slaughtering his own animals.

Russell sees the growing interest in local food as being, in part, about the yearning people feel to be involved in their food story—to know where their food comes from, how it was raised and by whom. He recognizes that, were it not for federal law, he could sell meat from his family’s farm directly to consumers who value the time, effort, and insight he invests in raising his animals.

Russell would like to see a tiered regulation system that would allow small farmers and consumers to benefit from direct sales. “As owners of our land and entrepreneurs in our community,” he says, “we feel we should be able to make business arrangements with our neighbors in a way that suits us.”

Randy Quenneville, Program Chief of the Vermont Meat Inspection Agency, has concerns that “there seems to be a general lack of understanding of sanitation principles and dressing procedures among small farmers.” The state agency works with small farming operations to help them understand USDA regulations and find ways to work within the bounds of federal law.

According to Quenneville, farmers are allowed to slaughter on-farm if they build a room that meets minimum sanitation requirements. At about $3 per square foot for new construction, however, the room requires a certain amount of initial investment.

Movement Grows
Russell’s desire for greater freedom in local, direct food sales is shared by many others who have begun to form what is now being called the “food sovereignty movement.” Russell believes this movement has developed a critical mass. “I don’t think that policymakers will be able to stem the tide of the food sovereignty movement,” he says, “People will buy the food they want, raised the way they want.”

Rural Vermont, a statewide nonprofit group founded by farmers in 1985, is currently planning a food sovereignty campaign which it intends to launch this summer. The campaign’s primary goal is to pass local food and community self-governance ordinances in towns throughout the state. One of Rural Vermont’s first steps will be to hold town meetings on the topic.

The ordinance is intended to protect the rights of consumers and farmers to engage in the direct sale of farm-raised and farm-processed goods without the oversight of state or federal government. This idea is not without precedent. Sedgwick, Maine residents recently made national headlines when they unanimously voted to adopt such an ordinance.

On Wednesday, May 4 from 6:30-9 p.m., Rural Vermont supporters from near and far will convene at the West Monitor Barn in Richmond for Rural Vermont’s 2011 Annual Meeting. Bob St. Peter, of Sedgwick, who is the executive director of Food for Maine’s Future, will give a keynote address on “Local Food, Local Rules: Creating Food and Farming Policies that Work for your Community.”

According to St. Peter, “Up until the last couple generations, we didn’t need a special license or new facility each time we wanted to sell something to our neighbors. Small farmers and producers have been getting squeezed out in the name of food safety, yet it’s the industrial food that is causing food borne illness, not us.”

The event is free for Rural Vermont members and all kids, and $10 for non-members.

If you are interested in participating in Rural Vermont’s food sovereignty campaign, contact Shelby Girard at or shelby@ruralvermont.org.

To read the full text of the ordinance, visit http://savingseeds.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/localfoodlocalrules-ordinance-template.pdf.

If you have information that you would like to share about local food or agriculture, please contact Josey at joseyhastings(at)gmail.com.

[Carl Russell]

Nice to have the update Jim. I’m happy for you. You deserve to have some fun with them ponies.

Be well, Carl

p.s. That team would go pretty good on some of the side-hills around here. You’ld never know there was a difference.

[Author]

Posts