[Carl Russell]

Josh, I have found that shoeing for traction plays a big role in getting horses that are comfortable with the work. There is no doubt the animals can get around, even on icy conditions, but when having to work, they definitely react differently when they have non-slip footing. To that point, I know a lot of people who just use shoes like Brad describes to good advantage, but from my experience they do not come close to a broad toe caulk, like on pulling shoes.

I mention this because these smaller horses have to use much more muscle when moving heavy loads. They don’t have the lift, nor the body weight to use for ballast that larger animals do. This factor combined with barefoot traction could be the basis for the “Hotness” , and the “acting like they want to go go go..”. Finding ways for them to become comfortable with the task will go along way to calming them down.

As far as wheel vs runners, my answer would come down to distance of skid. I know some folks who have runners to go on their Pioneer carts, and I have been impressed by the functionality.

If you have a good scoot, they can often be used right along side the fallen log, and because they pull so easily, can be used quite well on short skids. There is a lot less involved in loading them vs a bobsled, and therefore led themselves to the light and often method quite well. I know with you back situation rolling and lifting logs is probably a last resort.

Without a lot of extra work, you can set up a loading area where, after you have skidded your logs to a bunk sled, you can use the team to roll them on.

Another factor in getting the animals to “settle in” to the work is to stop them often. Most of the time, horses have to work hardest when they start the load. If they can move along with it then they can start it. They need to practice starting it as many times as they can, before they will gain confidence. Having adequate footing in good traction shoes will go along way toward this end as well.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Quote:

[FONT=&quot]So this is a little of how I am trying to prepare young teamsters that learn from and work with me today. I don’t believe I can predict all of the events of the future, but I do believe that proper preparation, planning and training can make those events as safe as humanly possible. [/FONT]

I particularly appreciate this comment. It is the preparation and planning that give us the leadership capability when working with our animals. The more we know our work, the more capable we are, and the better horses and people pay attention to us.

This is the drum beat I use when I address beginners. It is very hard for most of us to understand what we don’t know, and even harder for us to see how that lack or understanding interferes with our leadership, especially when we are staring out. I know how attractive it is to get leather in your hands, but it is vitally important to learn how to focus on those myriad details of all that is going on within and around the work before we try to direct the power.

Thanks Donn for putting your process into words so well.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

As individuals we can all have our own Liability and try to act like cooperating contractors, and even if we all have our own disability insurance, if there is a claim against one person’s disability policy, then that company is going to scrutinize the cooperative agreement to determine if the person was acting independently or as an employee. If an employee, then there will be a WC settlement.

There are many interlocking components to what I see as a possible solution. An entity that promotes a certain approach to forestland management using animal-power, could provide a service to LO’s that focused on forest improvement. Have this entity develop contracts with owners, and “hire” operators for each job. There would have to be some manner of demonstrating consistency between operators.

I know Jason and HHFF have been using a good model for years, but I think it might be worth trying to develop a for-profit model so that it could operate as an employer, carrying WC, Liability, and several other administrative costs. I have been at this for quite a while, and while I have cooperated with several folks in my area over the years, I have to say that we have not really solved the issue of pooling resources and increasing viability of animal-powered forestry.

Jason has proven that this kind of model can support better forestry and better marketing potential. I know we would need several people working as foresters, and marketing forest products, but it is my pipe dream.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Erik, the law was already “clarified” to say that if the owner of the animal contracts with the farmer to raise and slaughter the animal on the farm then it can be done under the ownership exemption, but VAA has rested on another interpretation that says that it is OK IF there is an inspectable custom facility on the farm, ie. mobile slaughtering unit.

You are right about the USDA and VAA. VT has a meat inspection program that must meet at minimum the USDA standards…. so that is the rub… VAA is worried that they may allow something that USDA would balk at and revoke the inspection program.

My own theory is that VAA actually must continue to create rules to prevent on-farm slaughter of meat for sale, and doesn’t want to address this issue with solutions, precisely because if they acknowledged that it is going on without enforcement, they (we) would lose the program.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

As often is the case with legislation, if you can get ahead of it (like it appears you and Rural Vermont are trying to do) and try to guide it, you have a “better chance” of ending up with something you can live with versus trying to change it after it’s been approved. So, some questions that come to mind are: if there were to be a smaller farm exemption:

1) Would you be willing to put a number slaughtered/yr (or whatever) limit on it? Like the 1000 birds thing.

2) Would you be willing to allow some oversight by VAA that there is some compliance with the requirements (whatever they end up being) of the smaller farm exemption? Do they do that with the 1000 birds to make sure you’re not processing more than that?

3) Ther might even need to be some type of documentation that you have “smaller farm” status to allow the exemption etc.

My point is that you make a very good case for the very small producer not being able to really benefit from the mobile unit idea (without serious modifications) – which was supposed to be beneficial to those particular farms. But as you well know, if you’re trying to negotiate a change or exemption etc, you need to have something you’re willing to offer up (those examples above are just a simple few quick ideas, although they might not be the most palatable. More paperwork.)

I don’t think we as a group have come to a number yet, but I am thinking that the cut off would be something like 10 total large animals annually. Some people think that is way too small, but from my perspective that is truly a small farm, and as you say VAA and USDA are not going to want to see this as an open door. Furthermore, many more animals and the mobile slaughter unit could probably be cost effective…. if they all went at the same time.

I also think the overview is acceptable. We already are required to file paperwork for every animal we take to the custom shop…. and we are trying to make this exemption activated by contractual agreements anyway, so I think that it would probably make sense that VAA be able to see a paper trail.

I think that this is the problem with the so-called exemption, most people think it means no requirements, but I think it only makes sense to validate what we are doing by registering etc. The blind-eye thing is a big part of the impasse. We need to get VAA to understand that we are trying to help them deal with a scale of production that is completely unregulated now because many are flying under the radar.

I/we realize it is a tough row to hoe. It’s just important to make the effort. We actually do have strong support and interest in the VT legislature……..

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I didn’t see that coming:eek:

Carl

[Carl Russell]

We split out a few rails and made a bit of a fence along the sides of a bridge on the new road.

[Carl Russell]

This is Neal’s Morgan Stallion twitching cedar logs.

[Carl Russell]

These are pix of Neal Perry’s Morgans working in the woods at his farm in Brownington, VT

[Carl Russell]

Here are a few pix from the gathering on Sat.

[Carl Russell]

I agree that a small farmer-owned unit SOUNDS good…. in fact the whole concept of mobile units is good. Where is breaks down for me is creating policy that continues to place regulation on very small producers that require them to operate under financial consideration that will affect the scale of their operation.

The unit that Geoff describes will not come to my farm to allow me to kill one steer at an affordable rate. It will require me to think about either moving my animals to another location, or arranging for others to bring their animals to my farm, all of which interferes with the mindful process that is exemplified by our system.

My story is actually immaterial to this discussion. I only use it to highlight a scale of agriculture that is often dismissed as “hobby”, or “too small to matter”. I understand that in many areas such as where Geoff lives, small operations are much bigger than many operations in our state.

However, what we are doing with Rural Vermont is to try to protect and cultivate a vital food system where there can be many participants. In our region there are many small patchwork farms where people are not going to be able to have an economy of scale that will allow them the kinds of choices that may seem commonplace for larger operations.

The fact is that as nice as having four clean walls may be, they will not guarantee that abscessed livers are noticed, or that intestines are not nicked, nor will they prevent hands from transferring manure from hide to flesh any more than an outdoor venue. What they will require is that these units be kept clean and inspected because of the exposure to many animals and environments, adding cost over the farm-site, even for animals slaughtered for personal use.

Where food sovereignty comes in, is in the action of a government to enact policy that on the surface seems to be reasonable, like four clean mobile walls, which in application add levels of cost and management that cuase operations to make decisions about scale, which in turn affects the base of our food systems, developing larger specialized farms. This sets us as a community up to be more vulnerable to the vagaries and economics that could seriously impact those systems.

The other way that this comes into play is that at our scale, with our mindful attention to how the lives of these animals affect our own lives, and how the environment that they are killed in plays into it, we get almost 30% more per pound for our meat than friends of mine who don’t take it to that level, or sell on the hoof.

Granted what I am doing is illegal, but the only options that are available to them are dictated by regulatory and market-based costs and prices. Because they don’t have the option that I am proposing, they operate at a scale required to absorb costs, which forces them to sell quantity into a market that dictates prices to them.

We just want to see policy that actually reflects the existing patchwork of possibilities that are in practice. We believe that continuing policy that in action affects the scale and methodology of agricultural enterprise is problematic. We have seen our food systems directed by this manner of regulation over the last 75 years, and we can’t continue to accept that. It is important that we think about how regulations affect all scales of enterprises, and without bias implement policy that allows success at every level.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Scott G;24238 wrote:

….. THIS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND WILL HOLD UP IF INITIATED PROPERLY The key is, and what the legal folks will look at, is that the sub is indeed a legitimate independent contractor. That means that they are and act as a completely independent business. There can be no traceable sharing of resources (tools, fuel, transportation, etc) that has not been,or can be, compensated for on paper. In other words, be able to delineate very clearly who is doing what, what they are responsible for, and what is the payment method. ….

Your insurance company should have waivers available to you for “your” subs to sign stating that they are independent contractors, not employees, and collect certificates of insurance from them. They may recommend that you have their insurance companies list your company as additional insured for the duration of the project. This is usually $100-200 at most. It provides you (and the other subs) an extra level of security should the sub do something very stupid…

This model works well. I, as well as many of friends/peers, have used it sucessfully for many years. There has to be a primary contractor (you) who, in essence, is the “woods boss” and ends up taking on all administrative and project management activities.

…..

The only catch is that you have to be very detail oriented and everyone participating has to be a “real”, verifiable, business entity.

….

Many good points. I too have used this method, but talking with my insurance agent there are still too many gray areas. We can all bring our own equipment to the job, but if I tell a self-employed independent arborist turned chopper which area to cut in, and then help him clear brush for my horses, then he sets my chokers for me to hitch to….. we are sunk. If I help Brad roll up logs he just skidded onto the landing, we are sunk.

With mechanical contractors it is much easier. I pay by the hour or mile to have the bulldozer build the road I flagged out. I can pay by the hour to have the forwarder operator move my logs to the landing.

However, with horse logging the value of cooperation is the shared interaction between individuals. There are shared tools, labor, directives, etc.

I have been advised that this will not satisfy the legals.

If a chopper has his/her own skid horse and puts em on the ground and trailside, and a teamster then forwards them to the landing, then that will certainly work.

The chopper working with a teamster would have to be a partner or employee, or vise verse, because of the intricacy of that working relationship, unless the chopper does actually just work by the hour, drops them and leaves them for the teamster. Rarely is this a good situation for a teamster, forestry, or operation.

I agree that is is a good model, but too often in practice it is truly a better theory than practice. It serves more to lead people to believe that they are cooperating sole proprietors, but they are not working independently enough if shit were to hit the fan.

It would be interesting though to work through a horse job with enough operators so that there could be distinct separation. Until recently that has not been much of an option around here. I think we are getting close.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

You are perplexed by my stance because you think I said I was against Mobile slaughtering units. I have endorsed them.

I was merely pointing out that before anybody endorses these things wholeheartedly, think about what is being overlooked.

Obviously I don’t expect, nor need, anybody to agree with me. Most people are very disconnected from the type of relationship that I have with my food. I don’t expect them, or you, to be able to understand, or endorse it. Just be aware that I am not the only one.

Being able to kill an animal and sell it to an informed party is a part of a manner of food sovereignty that I think we need to protect, and while mobile slaughter units can fit into that equation, they should not preclude slaughter without.

I would love to see more mobile slaughtering units. I would love to see them invigorate local food systems. Moreover I want to see people able to secure food from their local producers.

I also want to see free enterprise direct sale farming that is unregulated at a certain scale. This is a huge part of food sovereignty. If we continue to allow even the simplest, and most archaic form of food commerce to be regulated, and somehow mobile units play a role in that, then I don’t want to see them used that way.

I am not talking about people feeding themselves. I am talking about people buying dead animals direct from the farm. To some it may not matter who does the killing, but to me it does. To a growing number of people, it does. If having a trailer mounted slaughtering facility owned by six or more farms in our area allowed us to engage in this kind of commerce, then that I would consider. These are not the units Lynn was describing. These are not the units that are being proposed, or allowed.

The units that are being promoted are $250,000 stainless steel and refrigerated 18 wheelers, that will not be traveling from farm to farm, allowing farmers to kill their own animals. This initiative is designed to shorten the hauling distances, and to alleviate scheduling conflicts at stationary facilities, by putting slaughterhouses where there are none, and not tying them down in communities where the demand is not sufficient to support the economy of scale of a brick and mortar facility.

Actually in VT, for any meat to be purchased by a consumer the animal must be slaughtered in an inspected facility. That could be a mobile unit. I’ve looked into this, but in Vermont for an animal to be custom cut (facility inspected meat is not), it has to be owned by the person before it is killed, and it must be killed on the owner’s property. So I would have to sell the animal to my customer, transport it to their home, take the mobile unit over there, and then kill it for them.

The proposal that I support is that my sales agreement with the consumer says that they own the animal and have contracted with me to raise and slaughter it, allowing that contract to determine ownership, and acknowledging that the animal will be killed on the land of the raiser, not necessarily owner. The second part of that is that then the animals be allowed to be slaughtered under the exemption that is already afforded to owners of animals, to have it killed in any manner they see fit.

I really appreciate the feed-back and questions.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

goodcompanion;24248 wrote:

Really this discussion isn’t about mobile units at all except in that agency people want to use their introduction to end a long detente with producers like Carl……

…but what if other farmers do expand, get the same exemption, then get sloppy, someone gets sick, and on-farm slaughter (and by extension all local meat) gets a bad name? Is there no possible compromise as to an appropriate level of sanitary facility? It could provide a layer of protection for the participating producer.

…

I have supplied myself with on-farm slaughtered meat for 25 years, meeting all of my needs. I am not looking to expand, I am responding to people seeking me, to buy the meat I raise for myself.

I meant that my survival is not limited by a need to expand, and I have not purposefully TRIED to expand, but I have been getting an increasing interest every year….. and yes I am, and have been, selling meat illegally…. and yes there is a huge illegal meat economy all across US now, precisely because these regulation don’t recognize that people are feeding their communities in this manner.

They don’t enforce the rules because they know they couldn’t stem the tide, and if they do acknowledge that it is happening then the regulatory system that is supposed to prevent it would come under serious scrutiny. They are really in a bind. They want to pretend that meat production at my level does not exist… which is the inertia you mention.

The question about sloppy slaughter and meat quality is a red herring. Look at the meat that comes through the inspected system:eek:. The point is not whether a cleaner facility can provide better product. The question is how do we address the fact that thousands of people just in Vermont are feeding themselves from meat produced like this?

Even with mobile units this will continue, and it will continue to be illegal until we find a reasonable solution. I think we need mobile slaughter units AND an exemption for on-farm slaughter.

I think we can add to the exemption a statutory liability, similar to the equine liability law that states that any person engaging in an equine event must accept their own liability for accident or injury because of the inherent dangers of such activities.

If I could sell meat to customers who contract with me to raise and slaughter on the farm half and whole animals, with express acknowledgment of the potential inherent risks, with statute to back that up, then we could alleviate a huge burden from USDA and VAA, and let them deal with producers who grow for larger wholesale and pre-cut retail markets, where their oversight is needed.

My intention when writing this was to highlight these points, as they are often not considered by mobile slaughter advocates.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Geoff, my point is not against mobile slaughtering units per se. It is against the fact that when they are readily available then those of us who could raise and sell meat the way I do will be REQUIRED to use the mobile facility. This will add cost that I have no control over. It will also mean that my relationship to the animal will be interrupted by the killer on the floor.

I mentioned several times that I see the potential value of these units. What I want is the ability to sell meat directly to a customer, raised and slaughtered the same way I raise and slaughter for my own consumption, which is on my farm, by my own hand. The meat is not the product, the story is, and I know that I have a market that I could easily supply, at good profit.

The current regulations forbid me from selling meat this way. We are working to establish on-farm exemptions for small scale operations. I know for a fact from talking with folks in Vermont Agency of Ag that they see the mobile units as a solution that would eliminate the need for such exemptions.

I have supplied myself with on-farm slaughtered meat for 25 years, meeting all of my needs. I am not looking to expand, I am responding to people seeking me, to buy the meat I raise for myself. Furthermore, these mobile units will not be traveling from farm to farm. They will be parking in central locations regionally, requiring that people will still have to transport animals.

The problem as I say, is not that many folks won’t find it a great solution, it is that it won’t address the market I am talking about. My freedom to operate is not infringed. I am talking about keeping a human scale to some part of our food system for other people.

At our scale we would not be able to sell “unregulated” to unsuspecting consumers. Our position is that on-farm slaughtered meat be limited to contractual sales, and by 1/2 and whole animals only, with some maximum number such as there is now for poultry (up to 1000 birds annually, possibly 10 large animals annually).

It is about choices. We need to protect our right to make choices, as producers and consumers, no one else is going to do it for us.

Carl

[Author]

Posts